It Is Not Personal

[Teancum]

But Dehlin certainly thought he had Elder Jensen and Elder Holland in his pocket and that they could and would prevent the publication of Greg Smith's paper. What he did not realize is that there were those in high places who were asking when we were going to help deal with the problem he presents to the Church. I suspect that Dehlin was used by those who wanted Dan Peterson out of the Maxwell Institute, some for personal and others for what turns out to be ideological reasons, as has been demonstrated by what one of them posted on this message board. So it is likely that the decision was already made by those inside the Maxwell Institute to cancel the Review and move in some very vague new direction. Dehlin's being informed of Greg Smith's review may have been a way of getting him to complain and hence provide an excuse for cancelling the Review. If this is true, then Dehlin was merely a pawn. What is clear is that the Brethren were not behind the firing of Dan Peterson as editor of the Review. And they are now aware of Greg Smith's two essays. On 29 March 2012, I tried to explain to Dehlin that he did not want the Brethren to look into Greg Smith's paper. He told me they had done so, which was not true. All he had managed to do with get Elder Jensen and Elder Holland to listen to his survey, while others were anxious for Greg's paper to appear in public to counter Dehlin's survey. .

So Lou are you telling us that:

1: The brethren asked you or whoever your "we" is above, to write something that would expose John Dehlin somehow?

2: That the brethren are not happy Dan was removed from the MI? If this is true why would they not intervene? Since MI is part of BYU it seems within their close ability to do something about this.

3: That the brethren are aware of Smith's papers and that they approve?

[Pahoran]

CFR that any claim was made about ecclesiastical endorsement of Dehlin's activity.

Certainly. See http://www.mormondia...entry1209229323

I draw particular attention to this portion:

John Dehlin held a TR while his writings/statements encouraging others to "conceal or disguise" their feelings in the TR interview. I'm making the assumption his local leaders knew about this and gave him a TR. But maybe his local leaders don't have the internet. I've heard Logan is pretty rural.

And in this one: http://www.mormondia...entry1209229331

Unless his local leaders live under a rock I have to assume they knew about John's position given that it was public and that John wasn't shy in sharing this info.

So ... assuming that John's local leaders did know about his writing/statements and knowing they issued a TR, I just don't feel it would be my place to second guess these local leaders. For me, this is the crux of the issue.

Also in this post: http://www.mormondia...entry1209229338 wherein I find the following:

So even in Dehlin's local leaders were unaware of his writings/statements when they issued the TR, they could not have remained ignorant of it for long and could have rescinded the TR.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 27, 2013 by Pahoran

[Teancum]

I had not had a look at this before. It is proof of the mixed responses to what Dehlin was doing with that Stay thing. Some of the responses look to be sincere expressions of genuine faith, but others look like they had boiled up from the Recovery board. So some of what Dehlin managed was helpful for a few, but much was just the opposite. But we must keep in mind that Dan Peterson and others like him have been driving people out of the Church. As Greg Smith

Lou you have no way of knowing how many Dehlin has helped stay or how many he may have tilted the other way. Nor can you gauge accuratly how much your apologetics or Dan's have helped people stay or perhaps contributed to their disaffection. You seem to have a great desire to simply minimize with little basis anything good Dehlin may have done and make the apologists out as some victim of the mighty Dehiln. Why?

[Louis Midgley]

Fair enough. Dehlin made it personal, and Smith, in responding, had to make it personal as well. It is rather disingenuous to say the piece was not personal. Of course it was. it had to be, because it critiques Dehlin's own professed personal journey that he lives out for all the world to see.

1. If I write an essay on a Protestant theologian--Paul Tillich, for example--I just have to mention his name. He was, after all, a person.

2. And I may or may not find it relevant to whatever I may wish to examine in his published essays to mention that he was a torrid womanizer, which was the charm he had for many of his followers. Some of his disciples made a big fuss about this aspect of his life, and some even argued, as did his wife, that one fails to understand the basic thrust of his 500+ books and essays if one neglect to see the relationship between his being a womanizer and his understanding of both human and divine things. Now all this is again also in some sense personal.

3. And some writers have seen virtually nothing worth commenting other than his inordinate passion for orgasm with a variety of ladies, and his related passion for photographing their private parts. His wife wrote a book calling attention to this very thing. I met both his secretary and his archivist in Gottingen, Germany, and both in different ways found his sexual obsession to be one of his most attractive features. Again, this is in some sense personal. Much of what his biographer, who was himself a famous theologian, gathered much of what he had to say about Tillich from his various lady "friends." His wife was also obsessed with orgasm. She even wanted an open marriage but Paulus thought this was far too confining. And Tillich and his wife, when they first arrived in the USA when the fled from Hitler, visited brothers and paid to watch blacks fornicate. All this is juicy true tabloid type stuff, but not necessarily relevant for all purposes And I never even hinted at any of it in any of my own very personal essays about Paul Tillich. It was simply not relevant for what I wanted to write about.

4. I have written a dissertation, and published several essays on Paul Tillich's theology in which I never once even hinted at his passion for the ladies. Though I new about and met and discussed Tillich with several of his lady friends,I simply did not think his erotic proclivities were relevant to the kinds of things I wished to examine and criticize. See my essay entitled "Religion and Ultimate Concern: An Encounter with Paul Tillich's Theology." Dialogue 1/2 (1966): 55-74. My essay was very personal for me, and it was about and directed explicity to a famous person.

Conclusion: anything one writes can be personal in some sense, and if one deals with the opinions or actions of a person, then an essay will be in some sense personal. Claiming that a person's essay about a person is personal is obvious, but also insignificant. If an essay is in any sense personal and false, then we have an issue worth considering. But one must provide textual evidence to justify the claim that an investigation of the opinions of another's opinions is personal in a negative sense, or one is simply using a slur to avoid confronting the contents of the essay. And tossing in the word balance without carefully setting out what that word might possibly mean and exactly how the absence of whatever someone thinks it is ends up being a flaw. In none of the examples I provided above would mention of a lack or presence of balance be a relevant and hence meaningful comment.

I have had people insist that I must never ever even mention the name of an author who is even only a nominal Latter-day Saints and who holds a certain position I wish to examine. I have been told that doing so would be calling their testimon into question, and/or would be a personal attack. I have been advised to deal only with the persons arguments but without mentioning their name. When I did just that, I was then scolded for thrashing a Straw Man because I could not even name one author who held the ridiculous opinion I had demolished.

[sethpayne]

.....

Um.... you will notice that I specifically referenced the TR only.

Again, CFR that there was any claim of ecclesiastical endorsement of John's activities.

[Teancum]

Which Mister Dehlin's apologists tacitly concede when they have nothing to say about the factual accuracy of the piece, but only about whether it was kind enough.

Did you notice that one of those apologists recently tried to argue that Mister Dehlin's possession of a Temple Recommend, at a time when he was coaching people on how to lie in TR interviews, implied some sort of ecclesiastical endorsement of his activities? And that almost as soon as it became impossible for him to deny it any more, said apologist dropped that argument like a hot potato?

Regards,

Pahoran

You know Pahoran...hold on to your seat. I agree with everything you said above. And I recall when Dehlin went through this period I was rather bugged by it. So no argument from me on that one. Hope you did not hurt yourself falling out of you chair.

Cheers.

[MormonMason]

Even "bending the rules" (if that's the phrasing they used) makes me very uncomfortable on a matter as important as determining worthiness to enter the House of the Lord.

It happens--sometimes especially if the Bishop happens to be a close friend to the person he interviews. In one Ward I was in some years back a Bishop bailed his friend out of jail (who had been charged with solicitation of prostitution and had pled guilty) and gave him a temple recommend so he could go to the temple two weeks later. That Bishop didn't want to upset his friend. He is very lucky I was not his Stake President. I would never stand by for that kind of garbage.

[wenglund]

Is there something about my stewardship that makes it not okay to correct others when they are wrong?

You are not to "reprove betimes with sharpness" even when "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

So say the scriptures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Louis Midgley]

David,

I consider your fair and reasonable attitude on this issue an ad hominem attack on the majority of the participants in this thread. Someone may build a dossier of your thoughtful arguments and use it against you one day.

Phaedrus

I think that this comment is unwarranted.

[Senator]

You are not to "reprove betimes with sharpness" even when "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

So say the scriptures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hope the Holy Ghost gets overtime pay.....cuz he sure has been working alot of it lately.

[wenglund]

David,

I consider your fair and reasonable attitude on this issue an ad hominem attack on the majority of the participants in this thread. Someone may build a dossier of your thoughtful arguments and use it against you one day. Phaedrus

If you are running low on straw after this post, I know a website that seems to have an inexhaustible supply.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Um.... you will notice that I specifically referenced the TR only.

Again, CFR that there was any claim of ecclesiastical endorsement of John's activities.

I refer you to my post #252.

When a CFR is issued and responded to, it is more than a little churlish to pretend that the references were not supplied as requested, when in fact they were.

I shall edit my post to highlight the bits you seem to prefer to overlook.

Regards,

Pahoran

Lighten up on the snark, please. You did supply the CFR, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is being asked for.

[Teancum]

You are not to "reprove betimes with sharpness" even when "moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

So say the scriptures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am skeptical that much of the sharpness exhibited here is due to being moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

[sethpayne]

I refer you to my post #252.

When a CFR is issued and responded to, it is more than a little churlish to pretend that the references were not supplied as requested, when in fact they were.

I shall edit my post to highlight the bits you seem to prefer to overlook.

Regards,

Pahoran

Again, CFR on any mention that the claim was made ecclesiastical leaders endorsed John Dehlin's activities. Seems to me the extent of the claim was that John received a TR from his local leaders.

Please show a claim was made that John's ecclesiastical leaders endorsed his activities or retract your false statement.

Perhaps you could be more clear on what you are asking for?

[Louis Midgley]

So Lou are you telling us that:the brethren are not happy Dan was removed from the MI? If this is true why would they not intervene? Since MI is part of BYU it seems within their close ability to do something about this.

The fact is that only the First Presidency gives instructions to the President of BYU. This avoids the potential problem of the BYU President being sent conflicting signals and being micromanaged by any one of the Brethren. If you know any former BYU President, have them explain this to you.

[wenglund]

I hope the Holy Ghost gets overtime pay.....cuz he sure has been working alot of it lately.

That's not possible since it is expressly forbidden. Only kindness should be manifest among the saints--which mean that whenever they witness any sort of deleterious activities, they should greet it with acceptance and rejoicing or silence lest they be accused of being mean and causing people to leave the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[halconero]

It's not you, it's me.

That's not possible since it is expressly forbidden. Only kindness should be manifest among the saints--which mean that whenever they witness any sort of deleterious activities, they should greet it with acceptance and rejoicing or silence lest they be accused of being mean and causing people to leave the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Overtime = Body?

[wenglund]

I am skeptical that much of the sharpness exhibited here is due to being moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

I trust what you are saying because evidently your posts have been filled with the Spirit and haven't even the least hint of hypocritical judgementalism. You've been a shining symbol to us all of true goodness and charity and genteel communications.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 27, 2013 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

Again, CFR on any mention that the claim was made ecclesiastical leaders endorsed John Dehlin's activities. Seems to me the extent of the claim was that John received a TR from his local leaders.

Please show a claim was made that John's ecclesiastical leaders endorsed his activities or retract your false statement.

You asserted that they must have known about his activities. You argued that their provision of a TR demonstrates that they had no problem with said activities. In support of that argument, you further argued that they could have pulled his TR if they did not approve.

It may be that one of us is making false statements. That one is not me.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 27, 2013 by Pahoran

[wenglund]

It's not you, it's me.

No...really, it is me. But, I appreciate the thoughtful jesture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You need to reduce the snark to stay in the thread.

[Teancum]

The fact is that only the First Presidency gives instructions to the President of BYU. This avoids the potential problem of the BYU President being sent conflicting signals and being micromanaged by any one of the Brethren. If you know any former BYU President, have them explain this to you.

I don't. Are you willing to answer the other questions I asked?

[Teancum]

I trust what you are saying because evidently your posts have been filled with the Spirit and haven't even the least hint of hypocritical judgementalism. You've been a shining symbol to us all of true goodness and charity and genteel communications.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did not and do not exclude myself for my observation. It it a more and beam thing with me. No need for sarcasm unless you are feeling a bit guilty perhaps?

[Calm]

You asserted that they must have known about his activities. You argued that their provision of a TR demonstrates that they had no problem with said activities. In support of that argument, you further argued that they could have pulled his TR if they did not approve.

It may be that one of us is making false statements. That one is not me.

Regards,

Pahoran

Approval of a TR doesn't necessarily mean endorsement of a specific activity, rather it could just mean acceptance as not standing in the way of worthiness (just because something isn't bad doesn't mean it has to be good, it just may have no effect at all). For example, in a ward I was in long ago a friend who was an astrologer converted to the Church and received baptism clearance and then a temple recommend even though he continued in his astrology as his career. The bishop granted the recommend on the basis that he only use astrology as a therapy tool, something like a personality test and not to predict the future. Knowing the bishop, who was one of the most straitlaced man I have even known prior to his calling as a bishop, he most certainly did not endorse the activity, probably did not believe it had value, but accepted it as not interfering with worthiness if practiced with that one limitation.

I am currently assuming this is what Seth means, though I did interpret his comments before in the same manner you seem to be doing. Seth can correct me if I have gotten him wrong again.

[rockpond]

I think that he was implying that by organizing conferences and chapters, people were led down the wrong path by him and by others. He led people down the wrong path by implication.

That is not what he said nor what he implied. Libs stated it correctly... Dehlin's was not happy with peripheral behaviors happening outside of the conferences and so he decided to end them.

[Calm]

That is not what he said nor what he implied. Libs stated it correctly... Dehlin's was not happy with peripheral behaviors happening outside of the conferences and so he decided to end them.

He did state this in his clarification that I quoted:

I could not help but feel both saddened and at least partly responsible (as the leader of Mormon Stories and the OSF) as I watched some marriages dissolve in association with these conferences and communities.

What that responsibility was....providing the venue or being an example or something else he does not say...at least not in the clarification so it would be speculating to state it though the "in association" seems to narrow it to likely the venue provided by the conferences. However, why he would feel it was sufficient to simply dissociate himself and OSF from the conferences instead of discouraging the conferences from continuing....is confusing. Edited February 27, 2013 by calmoriah