It Is Not Personal

[phaedrus ut]

I think that this comment is unwarranted.

This comment is so meta that it boggles my mind.

[diahman]

The review was highly critical, but completely accurate.

Bill, what question(s) do you think the review is trying to answer? And how successful do you think it is at answering that question?

[tyler90az]

Edited February 27, 2013 by tyler90az

[rockpond]

He did state this in his clarification that I quoted:

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.

In his podcast he explained it as people meeting at those conferences (that he created/sponsored) and ending marriages based on those new relationships.

[Glenn101]

John Dehlins response:

http://thestudentrev...cast-published/

John Dehlin comes out looking very good at the end of this debacle.

Part of Smiths comments are this, "I look forward to them engaging in the substance of my argument, if they can. The claim that authors who support Church Leaders and LDS doctrine use ad hominem seems a transparent attempt to avoid addressing the problems."

What do you mean authros who support Church Leaders? Are you trying to assert that John Dehilin does not support Church Leaders? Is that another personal remark? Are you trying to assert that John Dehlin "followers are not capable in engaging the substace of the argument? Are you trying to say they are not smart enough? Sure smells like you have hate on your mind.

John Dehlin is right nothing is being done to engage struggling members. Reverse what you just said on yourself, are you capable of engaging John Dehilin in the substance of the argument? What can be done to help struggling members? I think th focus should be on what John said, "it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need."

Food for thought.

Who are you talking to? Greg has not participated in this thread at all?

None of the critics have been able to point out any inaccuracies in Greg's article. They can only agree or disagree with his conclusions.

If John can read the article and take something good from it, such as maybe preparing himself with a better understanding of the actual doctrines of the LDS Church and of the issues involved, then his statement that "I have no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article other than to say that as I move forward with Mormon Stories, it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need” will have some substance in and of itself.

I disagree with your statement that nothing is being done to help struggling members. That is one of the goals of apologetics. I also see efforts in local wards and branches that I have attended.

But, ultimately, those who struggle (and everyone else), are accountable for their own beliefs and the sources they engage to hone those beliefs, or unbeliefs.

Glenn

I have no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article other than to say that as I move forward with Mormon Stories, it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need.” - See more at: http://thestudentreview.org/controversial-paper-critiquing-popular-mormon-podcast-published/#sthash.wqZ03s9f.dpuf

I have no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article other than to say that as I move forward with Mormon Stories, it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need.” - See more at: http://thestudentreview.org/controversial-paper-critiquing-popular-mormon-podcast-published/#sthash.wqZ03s9f.dpuf

[sethpayne]

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.

I said no such thing. All of my comments were in the context of simply receiving a TR. I at no time extrapolated this out to mean an endorsement of any specific activities.

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

Sorry Pahoran but you did make a false statement. I never, at any time, suggested that the receipt of a TR from local leaders was in any way a tacit endorsement of John's "activities." I only stated that he received a TR and that the TR could have been rescinded at any time.

[sethpayne]

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.

This.

[Darren10]

Everybody can't be right all the time.

Speak for yourself.

[Bill Hamblin]

Speak for yourself.

Well, of course ONE person can be right all the time. Other people can be right all the time only when they agree with me.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

I said no such thing. All of my comments were in the context of simply receiving a TR. I at no time extrapolated this out to mean an endorsement of any specific activities.

Sorry Pahoran but you did make a false statement. I never, at any time, suggested that the receipt of a TR from local leaders was in any way a tacit endorsement of John's "activities." I only stated that he received a TR and that the TR could have been rescinded at any time.

It's not fun having your position misread and misrepresented, is it, Seth? (Hint, hint.)

[sethpayne]

It's not fun having your position misread and misrepresented, is it, Seth? (Hint, hint.)

Touche!

[Darren10]

Seth;

I've read your interaction with Bill Hamblin up to page 11. The gist of your arguments seem to hing on the inappropriatness to critique John Dehlin's public statement on his having a temple recommend simply because it's a temple recommend. Is that accurate? Cuz if so than essentially what you're doing is using his temple recommend as a shield to protect him from critique while he seems to wield it publicly for his own self interest in gaining public confidence. I find this position (not *you* but the position) as somewhat disingenuous and as low as people who use children or vicitims of tragedy to get their way publically and do so in order to shield themselves from critique. I do not think your position holds validity. Nothing was done to place judgement of personal worthiness upon John Dehlin; only to respond to his tactics in promoting himself.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10

[sethpayne]

I should add that Greg's article should really be dismissed wholesale simply because of the citations he chose.

I mean, who on earth cites some idiotic grad school student? Shameful really.

[Bill Hamblin]

That is for Bishops and SPs to decide. Not me. If local leaders feel John's writings on the matter are out of bounds, it is their job to address it, not mine.

That is for Bishops and SPs to decide. Not me. If local leaders feel John's writings on the matter are out of bounds, it is their job to address it, not mine.

I think the misunderstanding was based on these statements, which certainly could be read to imply that John's ecclesiastical leaders knew of his advise to dissimulate on temple recommend questions, and didn't care about it.

I am willing to be charitable and accept what you claim was your actual meaning.

[Darren10]

Well, of course ONE person can be right all the time. Other people can be right all the time only when they agree with me.

Heh. And, strangely enough, I find myself at times disagreeing with me.

[Glenn101]

To those who choose to give John Dehlin the benefit of the doubt, would it be wrong to suggest that maybe you give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt on some of the issues that he has been lambasted for? Especially since he is unable to respond for himself?

I, myself, bear no ill will towards John. I do find some of his public statements to be problematic, maybe a bit disingenuous, such as his advice to those who are struggling with their faith on how to carefully answer questions in a Temple Recommend interview. The reason that I have problems with it is because it reminds me of my own personal behavior years ago. I would never lie, but the "truth" that I told was often evasive and did not answer the question directly, with what would be commonly understood terms, etc. I was being deceptive, even though I did not lie. This is something that I realized about myself and have (hopefully) repented of.

I believe that the Churh does a very good job explaining just what it means for most things, espcially as concerns the restoration, Jesus Christ as Savior, and His Atonement. (We have enough threads on the endless repetitions of those lessons as evidence of that.) When I go into a temple recommend I know what the interviewer means when he asks certain questions.

People may have come to different beliefs about those particular doctrines or principles, but it would boggle the mind if they, after years of membership, did not understand what an interviewer means by the questions about sustaining the prophet, the restoration, etc.

Else we find ourself going down the Bill Clinton road when he explained to the Grand Jusry whay he wasn't lying in the case of Monica Lewinsky. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." To be able to say that he had told the truth, he had to redefine some terms and narrow definitions to fit his own circumstancesand to get others to invest in his innovations of the truth.

Hopefully John will actually read the essay, if he has not already, and take something positive from it.

Glenn

[Darren10]

I mean, who on earth cites some idiotic grad school student? Shameful really.

Heh.

[Kenngo1969]

Reminds me of some of the posts on threads that were here around Christmas time where people were calling people to repentance for calling people to repentance.

It was pretty weird.

Scott, I'm hereby calling you to repentance for calling people to repentance about threads calling people to repentance! Repent!

(So there! )

(Just kidding ... After all, I wouldn't want you to feel the need to call me to repentance, whereupon I would need to call you to repentance for calling me to . . . Oh, never mind! )

[sethpayne]

Seth;

I've read your interaction with Bill Hamblin up to page 11. The gist of your arguments seem to hing on the inappropriatness to critique John Dehlin's public statement on his having a temple recommend simply because it's a temple recommend. Is that accurate? Cuz if so than essentially what you're doing is using his temple recommend as a shield to protect him from critique while he seems to wield it publicly for his own self interest in gaining public confidence. I find this position (not *you* but the position) as somewhat disingenuous and as low as people who use children or vicitims of tragedy to get their way publically and do so in order to shield themselves from critique. I do not think your position holds validity. Nothing was done to place judgement of personal worthiness upon John Dehlin; only to respond to his tactics in promoting himself.

Hey Darren,

You know what it boils down to: I like to see the best in people and consequently, I view John as a very very sympathetic figure. I can relate to his faith struggle and on vacillating between two positions. Working through questions of faith is hard and my heart goes out to anyone who is struggling with questions etc... There was a period of time where I was "angry" about Prop 8 and during that period I wrote some things that I look at now and think: I could have been more fair and charitable in regards to the Church's position. This resulted in me diving deep into the subject and writing a paper that will be published later this year. Today, while I still support SSM, I would not write about the issue in the same way I did in 2009 when I was "angry." I found an outlet for my questions in writing and research and today, I find myself in a very good place with the Church. I have callings, I serve, and I'm even asked to teach on occasion. I love it. My point is, I'm not the same person I was in 2009.

John found an outlet for his struggle through podcasts and by forming a community. I think a lot of good has come out of it. At the same time I think that John could have done some things differently. But hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

So, when I read criticisms of John such that he is a wolf or part of some fifth column my instinct is to be defensive because I see a sincere man working out his faith. I've only met John once and we've traded maybe a total of 3 emails since 2006. But I like John. I admire what he was trying to do with Mormon Stories. Did some of it get away from him and morph into something not terribly friendly to the Church? Yep. Again, I don't really want to hold that against him because in moments of frustration I have said/done things that either regret or would approach differently today.

I suppose I just don't believe that John ever set out to hurt the Church. Did he say some things about the Church, FARMS, and FAIR that were over-the-top? Yep. I've done it myself.

Anyway, enough rambling. I think it is as simple as I believe John is a good sincere man doing his best and I suppose I just don't like seeing him criticized in ways that, to me, seem very personal. I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread but IMO, a fair review of MS would have included a discussion of the many people it has helped remain active in the Church.

In answer to your question about the TR: I don't agree with the advice John was handing out on answering the TR questions. I have found that simply being very open and honest with my Bishop about my personal feelings and questions is the most honest and effective way work with local leaders. But you know, maybe I've just been lucky to have had incredible Bishops. Others may have Bishops who react differently.

Seth

[sethpayne]

I think the misunderstanding was based on these statements, which certainly could be read to imply that John's ecclesiastical leaders knew of his advise to dissimulate on temple recommend questions, and didn't care about it.

I am willing to be charitable and accept what you claim was your actual meaning.

Thanks Bill. That was my intended meaning.

[sethpayne]

To those who choose to give John Dehlin the benefit of the doubt, would it be wrong to suggest that maybe you give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt on some of the issues that he has been lambasted for? Especially since he is unable to respond for himself?

Glenn, this may be the most salient point made in this entire thread.

Joseph Smith is a hero of mine and I've learned to accept him, "warts and all." I feel no need to defend some of his actions that were, at least in my estimation, morally questionable. But at the same time I see no need to define the man by his mistakes. There is much in Joseph Smith to admire and if God can work through a flawed man like Joseph Smith, perhaps there is some hope for me.

[Louis Midgley]

Note the following from John Dehlin. There is no mention of a hit piece.

MORMON STORIES BOOK CLUB

Please support Mormon Stories by clicking this link before making any Amazon purchases.

Moving Forward

February 26, 2013

By John Dehlin

Stephen Smoot of the Student Review recently asked me to comment on the Greg Smith article. This was my response to Stephen, and it is the only public thing I plan on saying about the affair going forward.

========

Stephen,

I think my biggest regret in this whole ordeal is that I’ve allowed myself to be become a distraction to the real issue: that there are thousands of sincere LDS church members and former members who are struggling with their faith and/or their church-related experiences. I believe that they are in desperate need of greater empathy and support, and that they should be our collective focus.

I have no substantive response to Greg Smith’s article, other than to say that as I move forward with Mormon Stories, it will be with a renewed commitment to constructive dialogue centered around helping those in need.

Thanks for inquiring.

John Dehlin

[Darren10]

In answer to your question about the TR: I don't agree with the advice John was handing out on answering the TR questions. I have found that simply being very open and honest with my Bishop about my personal feelings and questions is the most honest and effective way work with local leaders. But you know, maybe I've just been lucky to have had incredible Bishops. Others may have Bishops who react differently.

I most definitely agree with you on being open and honest with your bishop. I also most definitely view John Dehlin in publicly advising folks on how to manipulate the interpretation of the temple recommend questions in order to give the "correct answers" in order to get the recommend. In fact, that's an area which doctrines are very clear in that one will only bring condemnation to one's soul if he or she participates in ordinances unworthily. Dehlin's advocation in getting a temple resommend, so far as I can tell, stresses nothing in regards to striving to be worthy to receive it yet strongly on how to get one regardless of your worthiness. There's no inner reflection advocated by Dehlin in getting a recommend. In the end Dehlin shows no belief in, advocacy of, nor any importance to, keeping temple covenants which is absoutely essential for exaltation. I'll be frank and say that this is the adversary's main goal: to thwart exaltation. That seems a much easier for Satan to accomplish task than to get souls to follow him to Hell.

Dehlin also seems heavy on criticizing the LDS church and apologist and light on criticizing those who criticize the Church. As a whole, I agree with Greg Smith's assessment and particularly quoting Dehlin's own words, that he (Dehlin) harms the Church more than he helps it. To me, making that point is solid and to attempt to interject, "here's what he's done that's good for the Church" would only weaken the reviews strength and for me I'd disregard it as trivial and insignificant.

In the end, I find nothing objectionable to review John Dehlin's temple recommend since he himself has made it a public issue. I do not agree that one should not talk about it only because it is a temple recommend when the carrier has already made it a pubic item to look into. I've no desire, nor have I seen any desire on part of Hamblin or other apologists, to render judgement upon his worthiness and his temple going. In fact, the only person I truly worry about being worthy is me and, by extension, my family. While I've no doubt Dehlin's done good things I'm still left void of desire or reason to promote his "goodness". I do not think what he's doing is good, healthy, and it even nearly destroyed his soul so far as I can tell. I also have no doubt that many other pro-LDS Church venues would help those who claim that Dehlin and Mormon Stories helped them.

As for Prop 8, I was 100% for it and I found the Church did nothing wrong in supporting it. Traditional marriage is pivotal not only for our souls but for this or any nation to survive. For the former, the LDS firmly believe that exaltation requires a man to be married to a (at least one) woman and for a woman to be married to a man. That's crucial for either party to progress in Christ the Lord. As for the latter, there is no historic presidence for a nation to survive or thrive while sanctioning same sex marriage. I find it no coincidence that same sex marriage is gaining support at a time where wickness seems to becoming more normalized, our freedoms are shrinking, and the powers in government are increasing. To me these elements are all interconnected and build on one another. Please let me know of your paper's publication. PM me if needs be. I'd be interested in your take.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10

[sethpayne]

As for Prop 8, I was 100% for it and I found the Church did nothing wrong in supporting it. Traditional marriage is pivotal not only for our souls but for this or any nation to survive. For the former, the LDS firmly believe that exaltation requires a man to be married to a (at least one) woman and for a woman to be married to a man. That's crucial for either party to progress in Christ the Lord. As for the latter, there is no historic presidence for a nation to survive or thrive while sanctioning same sex marriage. I find it no coincidence that same sex marriage is gaining support at a time where wickness seems to becoming more normalized, our freedoms are shrinking, and the powers in government are increasing. To me these elements are all interconnected and build on one another. Please let me know of your paper's publication. PM me if needs be. I'd be interested in your take.

Thanks for your thoughts, Darren. I will certainly let it be known when the paper is published. I can tell you already that you will probably disagree with some of my conclusions but I tried to be careful and measured -- only drawing conclusions that I felt were warranted by the evidence.

Edited February 27, 2013 by sethpayne

[Darren10]

Seth;

Thanks.