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

[Nevo]

Has [Dehlin] now found good reasons for believing that there is a God and that there was an historical Jesus? If so, where has he addressed that issue?

In part 3 of the "John Dehlin and Faith Reconstruction" podcast episode starting at the 47 minute mark.

Dehlin affirms a belief in God ("I consider myself a believer in God"). He also affirms a belief in the historical existence of Jesus ("I do think that there was a historical figure named Jesus.... I've read the evidence for and against a little bit, and I think where I am right now is that I think there probably was a Jesus and that he lived. So I'm not denying that."). Regarding Jesus' divinity, he says "the divinity stuff starts moving into the 'hope' category."

I take Dehlin at his word here and am pleased that he has decided to return to activity in the Church. I have been critical of Dehlin in the past, but hearing him admit to many of his failings in the linked interview has softened my heart toward him. Although I still disagree with him on several matters (such as his good opinion of Grant Palmer), I sincerely wish him well.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Nevo

[Louis Midgley]

This is what he stated last year:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209121238

Brother Midgley's version of the interaction is published in the second paper, starting page 41:

Exactly. Greg Smith had access to the notes I took immediately after my conversation with Dehlin on 29 March 2012, and then additional subsequent commentary of what took place in that conversation. Dehlin's claims are merely self-serving rationalizations for having attacked a paper he had not read..

[canard78]

When you say "manufacture" you make it sound as if John made it all up.

The data's probably real. The sampling process and the questionnaire structure meant that (probably unintentionally) the conclusions were almost written before the survey was launched. So on that level, the researches presumptions and methodology in effect manufactured the results that came out of it.

[canard78]

If you will have a look at the timeline attached to Greg Smith's second essay, you will notice that prior to my 29 March 2012 conversation with Dehlin that he had made frantic efforts to prevent publication of an essay he had not read . I specifically asked him in that conversation if he really wanted the Brethren to get to the bottom of what he was doing. He told me that they had done this and were supporting him. This is simply not true. They had not at that time had an opportunity to read Greg's essay. What he had been able to present to Elder Jensen and to Elder Holland was his survey. And he also may have assumed (or wanted to believe) that they had been impressed with what he had manufactured.

I was under the impression that John Dehlin had always been careful to not mention the two General Authorities by name he had met with. In his podcast he only says "the apostle I met with" or "the general authority I spoke to..."

[Calm]

When you say "manufacture" you make it sound as if John made it all up.

Depending on what he was referring to...

My husband has created a survey that is the most used in his field (which probably isn't that big of a field at this point so I am not bragging that much, lol). Neither I nor him would have a problem with someone saying he manufactured his survey

[nealr]

The publications look somewhat informal at this point. Will these be formal typeset and published in the next few days? I certainly hope so.

[Sky]

For those of you who are interested in such things, see:

http://www.mormonint...mormon-stories/

Thank you for sharing with us! I'm in the process of reading through this and processing it. I hope to get a clearer understanding of this whole thing. Both sides need to be heard.

[daz2]

John is a deeply flawed human being. He suffers from self deception. He likes to be liked. He likes to protray himself as neutral and helpful to everyone. He wants to serve God without offending the devil. He is not sure what he believes. He is a bit of an emotional exhibitionist. He has made lots of mistakes. He has said lots of things he wishes he could take back. He doesn't like criticism, or having his motives criticized. He sometimes has a bit of a grandiosity complex, thinking more highly of himself than others do. But he also has directly opposite feelings, and doubts about self worth. He has many critics in the exMormon community, and many critics in the apologetics communities. He gets things wrong, sometimes very wrong. He is indecisive. He changes his mind frequently. He can be uncharitable to others. He bites off more than he can chew. A little ADHD.

But I like John. For all of those reasons, I like him. He is human, and that means flawed. I believe he is trying to be the best person he can. Failing at it many times. I believe he is trying to be honest and authentic and transparent. He is trying to help people. Maybe doing it wrong. Doing it differently from the way I would. But he is striving. For me, Mormonism means striving for goodness and truth. In that sense, I believe John is a great and magnificent Mormon.

I could write similar psychological profiles of John's critics. But by and large, I think they too (both exMormon and apologists) are honestly striving for goodness and truth--perhaps in the wrong way, but they are trying. In my book, that is what counts. Blessings to all.

Namaste.

[Louis Midgley]

In part 3 of the "John Dehlin and Faith Reconstruction" podcast episode starting at the 47 minute mark.

Dehlin affirms a belief in God ("I consider myself a believer in God"). He also affirms a belief in the historical existence of Jesus ("I do think that there was a historical figure named Jesus.... I've read the evidence for and against a little bit, and I think where I am right now is that I think there probably was a Jesus and that he lived. So I'm not denying that."). Regarding Jesus' divinity, he says "the divinity stuff starts moving into the 'hope' category...").

I take Dehlin at his word here and am pleased that he has decided to return to activity in the Church. I have been critical of Dehlin in the past, but hearing him admit to many of his failings in the linked interview has softened my heart toward him. Although I still disagree with him on several matters (such as his good opinion of Grant Palmer), I sincerely wish him well.

Dehlin is all over the place on what he believes. It depends upon his mood and the audience to which he is opining, as well as the person he is interviewing. But the language he used when he was interviewed by the Larsens was emphatic--he indicated that he could see no reason to believe in God, or that there was an historical Jesus. No one, of course, wants him to crash and burn in his relationship with God. But when it is always whether he is in or out of the Church, treated as a kind of club, then the question of how one relates to the God as he is revealed in our scriptures is crucial. One who loves Grant Palmer and his dreadful book has profound problems with the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in our founding text. He was one of my students at BYU. My colleagues knew him well. His entire career has been a profound disappointment to those of my colleagues who knew him and had high hopes for him. From my perspective, his constant, repeated attacks on Dan Peterson and me, as well as everyone else he denigrates as a dreaded apologist, which he has not turned away from, is something to take into consideration.

Dehlin recently interviewed Ralph Hancock, one of my former students, for whom Dehlin was a teaching assistant, and he indicated privately that he was going to attend LDS meetings again, and mentioned it again in the interview. This seemed to Ralph and me to be a good first step. But then he has gone right back to attacking Dan and me. He might as well have included Ralph Hancock in the list of monsters he feels it necessary to attack. One of the more serious problems Dehlin represents for the community of Saints (and those called upon to preside) is his constant effort to marginalize and demonize those who attempt to defend the faith. His recent blasts at FAIR and nasty comments about Dan Peterson and me are symptoms of this aspect of the problem.

[Teancum]

John Dehlin demanded it be published.

If he did I say so? I am about half through it. Interesting how Smith has listened to only a few of Dehlins podcasts and can produced a hundred page review. And Smith so far has not referenced, nor has he indicated that he listened to, any of Dehlins interviews with faithful LDS members such as Bushman or Givens. Even Peterson was interviewed albeit by Dan Wothersoon rather than Dehlin. Smith also bends his review to make Dehlin look like he may say he wants to help people do whatever they choose-stay, leave, whatever, but Dehlin really wants to help you go. In my personal experience with Dehlin and Mormon Stories I can say John means what he says.

[Teancum]

How does one know what Dehlin's relationship is with the community of Saints. What does full activity mean? Has anything really changed? Has he taken down or repudiated his remarks to the Larsens? Has he taken down any of his various efforts to pull the Church from its foundations? Has he ceased attacking people who genuinely strive to defend the faith and the Saints? Is it not the case that the truth about the Dehlin Affair should be available for all to read? Has he now found good reasons for believing that there is a God and that there was an historical Jesus? If so, where has he addressed that issue? If he now genuinely regrets his long slide into the dark that he has described, would he not insist on having Greg's essay available for all to see? Should not those who have been confused and misled by his various initiatives be made aware of how and why this happened?

Is any of this any of your business? How about we leave it between him, his stake president,bishop and God? Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner?

Added that if he really is attacking you perhaps that is your business. Attacking some who attempt to defend the faith may be warranted because some are really bad at it. Other than that you sure have a lot of strong hyperbole. Pull the church for its foundations? Really Lou? You think his stake pres would let him remain a member if such were true? Lou how many of Johns podcasts have you listened too? How many Mormon Stories conferences have you attended. Did you listened to his three hour interview about returning to the church? If not do some homework before you write such nonesense.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Teancum

[Calm]

If he did I say so? I am about half through it. Interesting how Smith has listened to only a few of Dehlins podcasts and can produced a hundred page review. And Smith so far has not referenced, nor has he indicated that he listened to, any of Dehlins interviews with faithful LDS members such as Bushman or Givens. Even Peterson was interviewed albeit by Dan Wothersoon rather than Dehlin. Smith also bends his review to make Dehlin look like he may say he wants to help people do whatever they choose-stay, leave, whatever, but Dehlin really wants to help you go. In my personal experience with Dehlin and Mormon Stories I can say John means what he says.

I am assuming you believe this statement given on the RFM board would support that position even though Dehlin states he is aware that his work tends to be heavy on the leaving as opposed to staying. Am I correct?

Regarding my “encouraging members to stay in the church”—this was my position for a time while I was trying to figure out my own relationship with the church (I’ve vacillated over the years about my own level of activity just as many of you here have), but the StayLDS position is no longer something that I push . . . and I’ve been very public about this on my podcast a few times now....

I now believe that people should follow their joy. . . . period. In or out of the church. That said, I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work—and I’m perfectly happy if they’re happy. I mean that. . . . Steve . . . I think your story could help a lot of people. It certainly helped me through a [tough] spot back in early 2000.

page 56

Does your opinion of what he is saying change when you compare it to what he says a year later to a different audience?

When Dehlin speaks to LDS interviewers on the Cultural Hall podcast, he tells us that Mormons who heard his material “would sometimes leave the church—rarely, but sometimes.”

Edited February 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning, Teancum.

John Dehlin has been nothing, if not public. But it's morally illegitimate to comment publicly upon his public activities?

Nobody bears him any ill will. And I can promise you that this piece wasn't published without extensive -- and I mean extensive -- consideration and consultation.

[Louis Midgley]

The data's probably real. The sampling process and the questionnaire structure meant that (probably unintentionally) the conclusions were almost written before the survey was launched. So on that level, the researches presumptions and methodology in effect manufactured the results that came out of it.

Dehlin has not provided a sampling of people, with a margin of error, who have actually been LDS and ;then have gone missing. The Church has a group who gather do this kind of thing. So they know about as much about why people join and do not stay, or who are born in the Church and never are converted and so forth, as it is possible to know using the best available research methods. He makes much of the fact that those whose opinions he farmed were well-educated and with large incomes and so forth. But if one is at all familiar with the Recovery Board, then it is possible and even likely that those people fudged on such matters to give their sour opinions more weight. Dehlin is careful not to claim that his collection of opinions by people who may or may not have even been LDS is at all "scientific" in any sense of the word. The survey is simply propaganda in an ideological war.

[Teancum]

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning, Teancum.

John Dehlin has been nothing, if not public. But it's morally illegitimate to comment publicly upon his public activities?

Nobody bears him any ill will. And I can promise you that this piece wasn't published without extensive -- and I mean extensive -- consideration and consultation.

Perhaps you are corrcect Dan. Maybe it is best it all comes out. But so far the paper focuses extensively on the bad. I see nothing about the interviews with those favorable. I have interacted personally with John. I have said before there are two people in the online community that have helped me stay LDS more than any others. One is John Dehlin and the other is Dan Peterson. I once met John, at a conferenc in 2011. He was heartily happy I was navigating my own personal spiritual journey while sstaying isnthe church. Not once did he say one thing to try to dissuade me. I am happy that,if he want, he is finding his own spiritual path once again in the church. I worry that the publication of this paper cpuld hinder that for him. But maybe not. But so far I think the paper very slanted to the negative side.

[Calm]

There is also this quote that seems very problematic to me, specifically the part I bolded:

Dehlin says that the negative reaction by ex- and post-Mormons “hurts a lot.”204 “What’s hard about the post-Mormons for me,” complains Dehlin, “is that they don’t realize how they and we share so much, have so much in common. If their goal is to get people out of the church, I at least get people to the point where they know a lot of the facts and have the chance to make that decision. . . . I sometimes wonder why they can’t see that I’m on their team to some extent. I just don’t go that far to say I want them out.”

It is on page 62

[Sky]

Is any of this any of your business? How about we leave it between him, his stake president,bishop and God? Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner?

It is our business. John has lived a very public life - and his disdain for LDS apologetics is clear. When he makes accusations and says rather nasty, accusatory things about Dan Peterson, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Greg Smith, FAIR/FARMS, or whoever, then that merits a response and asking questions. John is not above being challenged.

[wenglund]

This is a sad turn of events. I wonder why you felt a need to publish this now of all times? Dehlin is returning to full activity. Returning prodigal. I do not recall in the parable of the prodigal son the father turning to hus somewhat disgruntled son when he said "all that I have is yours" adding "now go out and write something to smear and garnsih your younger brother."

And then you al felt the need to publish something else on the whole debacle? Really?

Maybe these are strong words since I have not read the paper. I don't know if I have the stomach for it. But yea I will read it but I still wonder why it was necessary.

Are you suggesting that apologists should have hidden Dehlin's history?

Are you suggesting that Dehlin was actually a "prodigal son?"

Are you suggesting that there are things in Dehlin's history that might prove problematic to his return to the faith? If so, what?

One of the signs of true repentance and genuine return to the faith is owning up to one's past. As Dr. Phil says, you can't change what you don't acknowledge. So, if Dehlin is truly returning to the faith, he would welcome the chance to publicly take responsibility for his public actions, attempt restitution, and affect a change. And, if he does truly change, his past can be used as a marker in witness to where he once was and now is.

So, I really don't understand your concern. Could you please elucidate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 24, 2013 by wenglund

[Teancum]

I am assuming you believe this statement given on the RFM board would support that position even though Dehlin states he is aware that his work tends to be heavy on the leaving as opposed to staying. Am I correct?

page 56

Does your opinion of what he is saying change when you compare it to what he says a year later to a different audience?

All I know is what my personal experience is after hundreds of hours of listening to his podcast , going to a conferenc and interacting with the man personally. Does your opinion change now he is trying to be active again? I will ask you as well. How much of the MS podcasts have you listened to? Did you listened to the one he gave about his return? Or are you just quote mining?

[Calm]

Is any of this any of your business? How about we leave it between him, his stake president,bishop and God? Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner?

Do you disagree on principle of any discussion or do you just see this particular discussion as wrong? If the first, do you not believe it is appropriate to examine the impact a person has who has publicly states he wants to have an impact on others?

[Teancum]

Are you suggesting that apologists should have hidden Dehlin's history?

Are you suggesting that Dehlin was actually a "prodigal son?"

Are you suggesting that there are things in Dehlin's history that might prove problematic to his return to the faith? If so, what?

One of the signs of true repentance and genuine return to the faith is owning up to one's past. As Dr. Phil says, you can't change what you don't acknowledge. So, if Dehlin is truly returning to the faith, he would welcome the chance to publicly take responsibility for his public actions, attempt restitution, and affect a change. And, if he does truly change, his past can be used as a marker as a witness of where he once was and now is.

So, I really don't understand your concern. Could you please elucidate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am suggesting he does not have to own up to you Wade. Owning up to his past is between him and his leaders and God. That's it. I know that may be tough for you to understand.

[William Schryver]

The survey is simply propaganda in an ideological war.

In my judgment, this 9-word sentence encapsulates virtually everything that John Dehlin has done in the course of his "career." It also accurately describes virtually everything that takes place at RfM, MDB, newordermormon.org, etc.

As I have described in some detail elsewhere*, I am convinced that there has been a deliberate effort, on the part of many disaffected and apostate Latter-day Saints, to silence the voice of Mormon apologetics.

* = The Calculated Suppression of Mormon Apologetics

Edited February 24, 2013 by William Schryver

[Calm]

All I know is what my personal experience is after hundreds of hours of listening to his podcast , going to a conferenc and interacting with the man personally. Does your opinion change now he is trying to be active again? I will ask you as well. How much of the MS podcasts have you listened to? Did you listened to the one he gave about his return? Or are you just quote mining?

I tend to put more weight on unscripted behaviour than i do scripted, his appearances and behavour here on the board and on Facebook have influenced me much more than his podcasts or Greg's paper. I also don't expect my opinion of him to have the slightest influence on anyone and don't particularly want to be in that position anyway.

As far as quote mining, I am curious as to how you interpret them only...I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else how to judge the man. I am curious about how others view and react to him, that is all.

add-on: what interests me in Greg's paper is not Dehlin's comments, but the reactions to them, the social dynamic. "You can take the student out of the psychology class, but not the....."

Edited February 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

He made this public. He chose to take it public.

Though he doesn't publish books (and, for that matter, says that he doesn't read many), his various products are still essentially publications.

They're in the public domain.

There have been (and will be) no articles on people who've tried to work issues through privately with God and their ecclesiastical leaders. And nobody (that I know of) is trying to intervene in his personal spiritual life or to interfere with the actions of his bishop or stake president.

[Tacenda]

Dehlin is all over the place on what he believes. It depends upon his mood and the audience to which he is opining, as well as the person he is interviewing. But the language he used when he was interviewed by the Larsens was emphatic--he indicated that he could see no reason to believe in God, or that there was an historical Jesus. No one, of course, wants him to crash and burn in his relationship with God. But when it is always whether he is in or out of the Church, treated as a kind of club, then the question of how one relates to the God as he is revealed in our scriptures is crucial. One who loves Grant Palmer and his dreadful book has profound problems with the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in our founding text. He was one of my students at BYU. My colleagues knew him well. His entire career has been a profound disappointment to those of my colleagues who knew him and had high hopes for him. From my perspective, his constant, repeated attacks on Dan Peterson and me, as well as everyone else he denigrates as a dreaded apologist, which he has not turned away from, is something to take into consideration.

Dehlin recently interviewed Ralph Hancock, one of my former students, for whom Dehlin was a teaching assistant, and he indicated privately that he was going to attend LDS meetings again, and mentioned it again in the interview. This seemed to Ralph and me to be a good first step. But then he has gone right back to attacking Dan and me. He might as well have included Ralph Hancock in the list of monsters he feels it necessary to attack. One of the more serious problems Dehlin represents for the community of Saints (and those called upon to preside) is his constant effort to marginalize and demonize those who attempt to defend the faith. His recent blasts at FAIR and nasty comments about Dan Peterson and me are symptoms of this aspect of the problem.

Not to make light of what you said, but while reading this post I thought to myself this all could be made into a good movie, with the plots, twists and turns especially the student/teacher relationship. I hope one day all of you make amends and you can have the relationship once had. If all of you were living Christ's teaching of turn the other cheek than you'd be there. I hope there is a good ending and if there is, this would make one heck of a movie!