Greg Smith'S Review Of Dehlin'S "Mormon Stories" Is Now Available

[ALarson]

I've been reading boards for a long time, and I haven't seen a level of bitterness directed by apologists toward those who have forsaken the faith that I've seen coming in the other direction, the constant vilification of Daniel Peterson and others notwithstanding.

Really? This has gotten pretty rough and ugly from both sides. I really hope it stops soon as I believe there are good people with good intentions from both perspectives too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? This has gotten pretty rough and ugly from both sides.

To whatever degree that may be true, I deny that the level has been equivalent.

[Louis Midgley]

Do any of you wonder what the comments would be if the shoe were on the other foot? Might be similar to these....

To imagine that we are there are two side which are mirror images of each other is bunk.

[Scott Lloyd]

To imagine that we are there are two side which are mirror images of each other is bunk.

What Lou said.

[Tacenda]

What Lou said.

I guess you're right, the apologists have the spirit and the critics don't. Edited February 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess you're right, the apologists have the spirit and the critics don't.

I don't know if you meant this literally or in an ironic tone, but by-and-large, yes, I think that's true.

[Mayan Elephant]

i have been following this, and commenting, in multiple forums. after this many words, there is really not much moving either side, or any person, out of their positions. there seems to be a lot of discussion about whether this was a hit piece. i do not think it was, because it failed to hit the identified subject, Mormon Stories. Instead, it got mired in selected quotes by and about Dehlin, the alleged leader of a movement. It didn't hit anything or anyone.

the author and his partners believe they have done a great service, by proving that this man was and is a rattlesnake, that can only produce toxic venom. they feel that they have protected the kingdom by defining dehlin, therefore they can judge his product, therefore they can warn people to stay away.

critics of the piece do not see substantive research about the community or dehlin's research. instead, they see a piece that says it was about Mormon Stories, but clearly is about dehlin, therefore it was 'meant' to be a hit piece and so they are very harsh on the intent of the authors.

what i dont see in these discussions - is people asking why did dehlin got so many followers. it left me wondering why this community does not have the same thing? why is there not a thriving conversations about these topics outside of this forum? after all, dehlin circled around to all the blogs and forums before he concentrated a significant cross section into a central location on his site and then under his names on facebook.

i went to mormonchallenge.org to see that was happening there. nothing. no way to comment. completely disjointed. no introduction of who was really behind it. Kerry's videos are fragmented, short and incomplete. there seem to be a sequence in the book of abraham videos, but 5-7 were missing. there is no conversation. if someone was to have a conversation, who would be moderating it. it is not set up to be a community. it is a youtube channel with its own domain. there is no leadership or soul. the videos are cleverly produced and edited. it's like a lazy ensign. there is nothing personal. nothing to sink one's teeth into. it is almost as if, the creator wants someone to google book of abraham, find that video, and say, "huh, i'm good now. no more questions." but that's not how people work these days. people write, and work their stuff out in conversations, especially when it is something like religion, where things are not so openly discussed in personal conversations.

i tried mormoninterpreter. my experience was the same. it is a very cumbersome site, no place to talk where the content is published. someone has to know that this place is here. and the way the piece is published, it will not likely be effectively searched on bing or the likes. there is not a community. who is this guy that wrote this? oh, some bishop doctor friend of Lou. another guy that has the answers and cant understand why anyone would question, unless they are sick sinners, which is why they are not hosting comments for critics or admirers there where it is published. can you even imagine what would happen if there was a comment section attached to the review? yikes. but, because of the content and the who is involved, there is no community around it.

there are some places, like by common consent, that show a real community with real stories. feminist mormon housewives is big, and it is a community that is mixed. but, you dudes, with your apologetics, don't have that outside of this forum. you don't have a site, that i know of, that compares to the organization that grew out of Mormon Stories. What was it, 90 cities with groups? that was impressive.

john dehlin was part of a relatively large movement. i disagree with john on some key things. i think he is ridiculous and offensive when he talks to and about exmormons. you guys think he is trying to lead people out, laughable. so funny. that assumption, then a belief, and now a fact because you wrote it over 170 pages is something the exmormons will never agree with, and is why there is such a contrast between the comments here versus there. john was an incredible publisher. he was very good in the new social media. he was as good as anything i have seen. there was nothing for mormons to talk and gather like they did under his moderated boards and sites. he offered the byu and the maxwell institute more than anything they could have imagined in terms of an example of how to gather mormons. he didnt get this by creating an anti cult hysterical moment. he did it by creating a great site, having great interviews with contemporary people, and telling real stories. REAL! not some video about a guy who is building a house with his dad, and has a moment. these people were real. you dont like palmer, you dont like sutherton. well, do a podcast and talk about it. let dehlin interview you. i guarantee you, if lou midgley was interviewed by dehlin, that would get some traction on everyone's boards.

both sides in this claim to have the advantage, the truth. the mormon stories followers want to see the facts, warts and all. the truth they can handle. a bit of contention, they can handle it. they dont need the church to be right or perfect, they will decide for themselves what to do. john is an example of that, he decides something new all the time. the contrast is, here you too claim to have the truth - the one true church, kingdom, book, story, god, prophet and mission. even if all that is actually true, you could learn from dehlin and the mormon stories community how to find a way to tell that story better. if potential converts had a community to join, and make friends, and talk about all this stuff they are going to find online anyways, they would join it. if that community was open, honest, friendly and didn't spend to much time pretending there was a threat when there was not. exmormons would join it. a lot of them would still be in church if they could sit in church and make the same comments about the book of abraham that they would make here or in another forum.

[Tacenda]

Mayan Elephant, that is an excellent post, third favorite post on MDDB for me. If Mormon Stories is such a bad forum (podcasts), why have Dan Petersen and so many other faithful LDS participated on it? Any of you care to answer?

[Scott Lloyd]

what i dont see in these discussions - is people asking why did dehlin got so many followers. it left me wondering why this community does not have the same thing? why is there not a thriving conversations about these topics outside of this forum? after all, dehlin circled around to all the blogs and forums before he concentrated a significant cross section into a central location on his site and then under his names on facebook.

It's not all that hard to figure out, is it? He got so many followers, because people need to have their doubts validated. It's human nature. He became their safe harbor.

People who are not struggling are not so much in need of a safe harbor, or if they are, they look to sources other than apologists to provide it. So among faithful believers, you won't find a comparable counterpart community to the Mormon Stories crowd.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

i have been following this, and commenting, in multiple forums. after this many words, there is really not much moving either side, or any person, out of their positions. there seems to be a lot of discussion about whether this was a hit piece. i do not think it was, because it failed to hit the identified subject, Mormon Stories. Instead, it got mired in selected quotes by and about Dehlin, the alleged leader of a movement. It didn't hit anything or anyone.

Only angry folks see it as a hit piece, from what I've seen.

the author and his partners believe they have done a great service, by proving that this man was and is a rattlesnake, that can only produce toxic venom. they feel that they have protected the kingdom by defining dehlin, therefore they can judge his product, therefore they can warn people to stay away.

Wow. This may be the only time I've seen someone get "dehlin is a rattlesnake who can only produce venom" out of the piece. Kind of creative, at the very least.

critics of the piece do not see substantive research about the community or dehlin's research. instead, they see a piece that says it was about Mormon Stories, but clearly is about dehlin, therefore it was 'meant' to be a hit piece and so they are very harsh on the intent of the authors.

Indeed. it appears they are after far more than the single author of the piece and in hopes to continue to go after others, they have included everyone and anyone who could possibly be linked to the piece as the actual authors. They are trying to hit many people for sure.

what i dont see in these discussions - is people asking why did dehlin got so many followers. it left me wondering why this community does not have the same thing? why is there not a thriving conversations about these topics outside of this forum? after all, dehlin circled around to all the blogs and forums before he concentrated a significant cross section into a central location on his site and then under his names on facebook.

i went to mormonchallenge.org to see that was happening there. nothing. no way to comment. completely disjointed. no introduction of who was really behind it. Kerry's videos are fragmented, short and incomplete. there seem to be a sequence in the book of abraham videos, but 5-7 were missing. there is no conversation. if someone was to have a conversation, who would be moderating it. it is not set up to be a community. it is a youtube channel with its own domain. there is no leadership or soul. the videos are cleverly produced and edited. it's like a lazy ensign. there is nothing personal. nothing to sink one's teeth into. it is almost as if, the creator wants someone to google book of abraham, find that video, and say, "huh, i'm good now. no more questions." but that's not how people work these days. people write, and work their stuff out in conversations, especially when it is something like religion, where things are not so openly discussed in personal conversations.

i tried mormoninterpreter. my experience was the same. it is a very cumbersome site, no place to talk where the content is published. someone has to know that this place is here. and the way the piece is published, it will not likely be effectively searched on bing or the likes. there is not a community. who is this guy that wrote this?

I think what is being missed is that there is some use in examining and critiquing movements like that which Dehlin introduced/created. There is no published material. It is a bunch of talk. But that doesn't mean its not worth examining. And, it just so happens that the movement is influenced by Dehlin's publicized views. I really don't know how else the issue could be discusssed, unless his public views were not examined.

oh, some bishop doctor friend of Lou. another guy that has the answers and cant understand why anyone would question, unless they are sick sinners, which is why they are not hosting comments for critics or admirers there where it is published. can you even imagine what would happen if there was a comment section attached to the review? yikes. but, because of the content and the who is involved, there is no community around it.

I don't get yoru complaint here. You said yourself you've been around reading comments about it all. Like you, I haven't really seen anyone review the critique. just general comments suggesting they don't like it.

there are some places, like by common consent, that show a real community with real stories. feminist mormon housewives is big, and it is a community that is mixed. but, you dudes, with your apologetics, don't have that outside of this forum. you don't have a site, that i know of, that compares to the organization that grew out of Mormon Stories. What was it, 90 cities with groups? that was impressive.

it is. Many movements and organizations have grown impressively.

john dehlin was part of a relatively large movement. i disagree with john on some key things. i think he is ridiculous and offensive when he talks to and about exmormons.

Like what? When he said something about how he observed in these groups of people drugs and partner sharing? I don't see why people took such offense to his observations. Or, are you talking about something else? I've only seen him attack folks like DCP (a pathetic person, in his view, and a pathological deceiver).

you guys think he is trying to lead people out, laughable. so funny. that assumption, then a belief, and now a fact because you wrote it over 170 pages is something the exmormons will never agree with, and is why there is such a contrast between the comments here versus there.

Sadly people who have put their trust in him have turned on him, as I've seen. Many have went after him for deciding to go back to Church. Weird stuff. It's almost as if they who have left the Church, feel like they were lied to. As if, they were feeling better about leaving because of him. Weird stuff.

john was an incredible publisher. he was very good in the new social media. he was as good as anything i have seen. there was nothing for mormons to talk and gather like they did under his moderated boards and sites. he offered the byu and the maxwell institute more than anything they could have imagined in terms of an example of how to gather mormons. he didnt get this by creating an anti cult hysterical moment. he did it by creating a great site, having great interviews with contemporary people, and telling real stories. REAL! not some video about a guy who is building a house with his dad, and has a moment. these people were real. you dont like palmer, you dont like sutherton. well, do a podcast and talk about it. let dehlin interview you. i guarantee you, if lou midgley was interviewed by dehlin, that would get some traction on everyone's boards.

If I ever found time I enjoyed the podcasts for the most part. They are just too long and often too boring or repetitive for my tastes. I'd prefer to read people's ideas. But rest assured I found many of them just amazing. The one with DCP comes to mind.

both sides in this claim to have the advantage, the truth. the mormon stories followers want to see the facts, warts and all. the truth they can handle. a bit of contention, they can handle it. they dont need the church to be right or perfect, they will decide for themselves what to do. john is an example of that, he decides something new all the time. the contrast is, here you too claim to have the truth - the one true church, kingdom, book, story, god, prophet and mission. even if all that is actually true, you could learn from dehlin and the mormon stories community how to find a way to tell that story better. if potential converts had a community to join, and make friends, and talk about all this stuff they are going to find online anyways, they would join it. if that community was open, honest, friendly and didn't spend to much time pretending there was a threat when there was not. exmormons would join it. a lot of them would still be in church if they could sit in church and make the same comments about the book of abraham that they would make here or in another forum.

One of the grand benefits of Dehlin's movement was he could trash the apologists and speak as if they are doing nothing but hurting people without much comment. It seemed like his followers, for the most part, had something in common, they all wanted to think of another as the enemy--whether it was the apologists, or leaders of the Church, or whoever. To me, one of the successful tactics he employed was using that to his advantage.

Kinda sad because you are right, he did indeed create quite a stir of excitement.

[stemelbow]

It's not all that hard to figure out, is it? He got so many followers, because people need to have their doubts validated. It's human nature. He became their safe harbor.

I think you raise an interesting point. I do think the more significant reason he attracted such a crowd is the desire for people to gather together who have a common enemy. It was skillfully played by him. But I"m sure what you list was also a significant contributor.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not all that hard to figure out, is it? He got so many followers, because people need to have their doubts validated. It's human nature. He became their safe harbor.

People who are not struggling are not so much in need of a safe harbor, or if they are, they don't look to sources other than apologists to provide it. So among faithful believers, you won't find a comparable counterpart community to the Mormon Stories crowd.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking.

In fact, now that I reflect on it, an apt question to ask someone who is struggling -- or for the struggler to ask him/herself -- is this: Do you want to have your questions resolved, or are you merely seeking to have your doubts validated?

That could go a long way toward ascertaining motive and true desire.

It seems to me that an apologist's self-defined role is to resolve questions, not to validate doubts. Therefore, my hunch is that the problems questioners say they have with apologists might stem from the fact that the apologist is trying to resolve the question when the questioner only wants to have his/her doubts validated. They are thus at cross purposes. Accordingly, the questioner becomes annoyed or angry and makes charges against the apologist such as "He drove me out of the Church."

Edited February 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you raise an interesting point. I do think the more significant reason he attracted such a crowd is the desire for people to gather together who have a common enemy. It was skillfully played by him. But I"m sure what you list was also a significant contributor.

Indeed.

I invite you to take a look at my most recent post, the one I posted just after the one you responded to here.

[wenglund]

the author and his partners believe they have done a great service, by proving that this man was and is a rattlesnake, that can only produce toxic venom. they feel that they have protected the kingdom by defining dehlin, therefore they can judge his product, therefore they can warn people to stay away.

I am requesting a CFR (call for references) for the bolded portion of your statement above. This isn't anywhere close to what I have read. If that is your impression, I would like to know what specifically gave you that impression.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If Mormon Stories is such a bad forum (podcasts),....

Who is saying it is a "bad forum." I am just trying to figure out where you and others are coming up with this stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

I am requesting a CFR (call for references) for the bolded portion of your statement above. This isn't anywhere close to what I have read. If that is your impression, I would like to know what specifically gave you that impression.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My guess is that a true reference would go back to Scratch, Kishkumen et al. It is they who have created the "hit piece" mantra that Mister Dehlin's loyal followers rely upon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Teancum]

He and others may one day come to understand the truth of Elder Hartman Rector Jr.'s words given years ago in a general conference talk: "You can't have the fruits of Mormonism without having the roots of Mormonism."

Or perhaps you all will be happy to have us in spite of our questions and doubts. I can tolerate the orhodox. Can they tolerate the less orthodox? Based on what I know about Joseph Smith he would not be anxious for such rigidity in the Church that came through him.

[Louis Midgley]

For the record, John is going back to Church and orthopraxy, but has definitely not claimed orthodoxy. Quite the opposite in fact. John's return to church is a return to the spirituality and community he felt was missing from his life.

Some may have heard that an agnostic French King once said that "Paris is worth a Mass." With this in mind, I am a bit troubled, actually very disappointed, by the comments in support of John on his own website.I still hold out hope.

[wenglund]

It's not all that hard to figure out, is it? He got so many followers, because people need to have their doubts validated. It's human nature. He became their safe harbor.

Agreed. The loosely-knit group of "leavetakers", as Greg clinically defined the term, tended to have their celebrities just like the faithful. For awhile it was Steve Benson, then it was Tal Bachman, then it was some former Bishop in Canada (I forget his name), then it was a grad student at the U.W. (I also forgot his name), then it was Simon Southernton, and now it is John Dehlin.

From what I can tell, Dehlin has had much greater staying power than his predecessors for a variety of reasons, some of which Greg touched on in his article.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 28, 2013 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

Who is saying it is a "bad forum." I am just trying to figure out where you and others are coming up with this stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I need more info, what stuff?

[Teancum]

To whatever degree that may be true, I deny that the level has been equivalent.

I don't see the same level of vile and vulgarity from the faithful towards the less faithful that those who have left direct at the defenders. But I am amazed at time still at the spite and cynicism I see from those who claim to be saints of Jesus Christ. Those who profess to follow him are, right or wrong, held to a higher standard.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or perhaps you all will be happy to have us in spite of our questions and doubts. I can tolerate the orhodox. Can they tolerate the less orthodox? Based on what I know about Joseph Smith he would not be anxious for such rigidity in the Church that came through him.

It depends on what you mean by "tolerate," I suppose.

If you're talking about ideas and notions contradicting the core doctrines and principles of the gospel being endowed with equal standing, stature and validity to those doctrines and principles; if you are envisioning debates occurring in Sunday School and priesthood classes over core doctrines and principles; then I think you are holding out a vain hope.

And no, I don't believe the Prophet Joseph Smith would have approved of such a thing.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

It's not all that hard to figure out, is it? He got so many followers, because people need to have their doubts validated. It's human nature. He became their safe harbor.

People who are not struggling are not so much in need of a safe harbor, or if they are, they look to sources other than apologists to provide it. So among faithful believers, you won't find a comparable counterpart community to the Mormon Stories crowd.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're asking.

I am not sure I agree. Or would you agree that believer need their beliefs validated? Sort of like a monthly testimony meeting? Or going the the FAIR conference. Or even the activity of being an apologist? If it works one way it works the other as well.

[Louis Midgley]

I guess you're right, the apologists have the spirit and the critics don't.

You are not following the conversation. Everyone, if they are at all rational, is an apologist for what they believe. Some are passionate and sometimes clever and articulate and skillful apologists for radical criticism of the faith of the Saints. We can see this played out in E. D. Howe's famous book, in which the notorious Mr. Hurlbut did his thing. More recently, we can see this with Dale Morgan and Fawn Brodie. And we can see the same thing in the Book of Mormon with the followers of Nehor, can we not?.

[wenglund]

I need more info, what stuff?

The "stuff" in your post that I specifically quoted in my requested CFR. Obviously. You insinuated that people here figured "Mormon Stories is such a bad forum." I am asking you who is saying it is a "bad forum"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-