It Is Not Personal

[ALarson]

Or he took the confounded road.

Well, I don't think his response is confounded. But, I do believe that John Dehlin is still confounded or confused when it comes to his beliefs. I think he is a very highly conflicted man.

I still feel he took the high road with his response though.

[ERayR]

Well, I don't think his response is confounded. But, I do believe that John Dehlin is still confounded or confused when it comes to his beliefs. I think he is a very highly conflicted man.

I still feel he took the high road with his response though.

That's what happens when one tries to ride the fence. As my grandpap used to say one who straddles the fence usually ends up with a sore crotch.

[Darren10]

Well, I don't think his response is confounded. But, I do believe that John Dehlin is still confounded or confused when it comes to his beliefs. I think he is a very highly conflicted man.

I still feel he took the high road with his response though.

He is highly conflicted which is one reason he berated Dan Petersn and Greg Smith for something they did not do and then demanded that what they did not do gets released so that everyone, including Dehlin himself, can see that they did do what they have said they did not do. After the release of Smith's paper, Dehlin now says he has "nothing substantial" to say about what they did. Perhaps it's because they did do what the said they did not do which is what Dehlin's been saying they did do.

Heehee, ya follow?

[Darren10]

As my grandpap used to say one who straddles the fence usually ends up with a sore crotch.

Wise man. and, ummm, OUCHIE!!!

Edited February 27, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

So you would say the same of Joseph Smith?

What salary did Joseph Smith get from the Church? What salary do the Brethren get today?

[The Grimace]

I can't understand how someone who doesn't believe would want to stay and teach, as truth, something they don't believe.

Salary and pension.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What salary did Joseph Smith get from the Church? What salary do the Brethren get today?

I'm fairly certain that Joseph had all of his expenses paid by the church (that is he did not farm, craft or do other things to support himself) at least in the later years. If I am wrong here, please feel free to correct me. As for the Brethren, I couldn't possibly know, but I would imagine that it is much more than the $37,000 gross with no benefits that John made. I live in Utah, have a family of 6 and my healthcare plus dental runs $20,000/year. Note, I have no problem with Brother Joseph, President Monson, CES professionals, etc making an income. I also don't think that they are in it for the money. I think that they and people like John could likely make more money elsewhere and do it because they are otherwise motivated.

I'm curious for you though. Do you think it is fair in Why Me's words to say:

When someone is operating a foundation and receives a salary from that foundation that they have created, and they depend on this salary to give additional support to their family, it would stand to reason that they may wish to keep it going for that reason. It would not be fair to say that the person is operating with only altruistic reasons.

If this applies to John, why not Joseph? Again, I'm not the one saying the salary is relevant I think John's salary is quite modest and for what President Monson does, I'm sure that his is quite modest as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm fairly certain that Joseph had all of his expenses paid by the church (that is he did not farm, craft or do other things to support himself) at least in the later years. If I am wrong here, please feel free to correct me.

Joseph had a farm in Nauvoo. When I was there for the Nauvoo Illinois Temple dedication, I stayed in a converted barn that was on land on the eastern outskirts of town that once belonged to Joseph.

And he ran a boarding house called Nauvoo House.

[sethpayne]

What salary did Joseph Smith get from the Church? What salary do the Brethren get today?

Joseph had the Nauvoo Mansion House built for him so he had free housing. Not sure if he collected a stipend.

[Teancum]

This sums up part of my problems with Dehlin's various undertakings. I also don't quite see that the best person to help people in crisis over their faith in God and so forth is one who has lost his faith, and who is not at all informed on his own previous faith or grounds and reasons sustaining deepening faith. FAIR has done much of what John claims to have been doing, And the Maxwell Institute has provided a huge library of scholarship that can, if one is interesed, both susain and deepen faith and understanding. My experience is that those who complain about and mock either have not given much if any attention to either, and his, unfortunately, includes John Dehlin.

Lou

I have a sincere question for you. What does a person do who is fairly well read in things LDS, both doctrinal and historical when they are faced with a crisis of faith? Further assume this person was even interested in apologetics and their reading had included such material. In fact, what if they had even tried their hand at some hobby aplologetics. What if they had read, and read info from FAIR and The MI and just found that, while the attempt at answering hard questions was certianly worthy, the conclusions and answers the aplogists gave were not satisfying. What does such a person do then? Who do they turn to? Where can they find empathy? What if they, in order to maintain their activity among the saints needs to modify who they approach to gospel? Who can they talk to about such things?

I look forward to your thoughts and advice.

[Teancum]

You are a bit naive. He makes a good living doing what he does through a tax exempt foundation, which pays him a salary and covers all his expenses.

$40K per year? I would not call that a good living. And your comment is a bit cynical. I recall another apologist who bristled when accused of getting paid by FARMS. I defended that person by the way.

[ERayR]

Salary and pension.

I am just full of sayings today but here is another. He who sells his soul for filthy lucre sells it very cheaply indeed.

[Louis Midgley]

I believe that when John posted the breakdown of the funds received on his website, and discussed the salary,it was noted that a significant portion of the salary itself goes towards payment of health insurance for his family (I believe he has 4 kids?) - and that insurance is not an additional covered 'expense' from MS. So keep in mind that this is not 40k plus insurance (as one who has insurance included in their employment might assume when they see the salary number) - this is 40k minus health/dental, etc insurance, which can rip a not insubstantial chunk out of that.

While it may not make a difference to most when they think about this, it is something to consider when that number is bandied around.

From his website:

This is helpful information. Is there any indication of whether expenses are covered by the foundation?

[ERayR]

I'm fairly certain that Joseph had all of his expenses paid by the church (that is he did not farm, craft or do other things to support himself) at least in the later years. If I am wrong here, please feel free to correct me. As for the Brethren, I couldn't possibly know, but I would imagine that it is much more than the $37,000 gross with no benefits that John made. I live in Utah, have a family of 6 and my healthcare plus dental runs $20,000/year. Note, I have no problem with Brother Joseph, President Monson, CES professionals, etc making an income. I also don't think that they are in it for the money. I think that they and people like John could likely make more money elsewhere and do it because they are otherwise motivated.

I personally do not think John Dehlin compares in any way to "Brother Joseph, President Monson". That you do is interesting.

[Daniel Peterson]

Teancum:

I, for one, think that much more can and should be done in order to help those with doubts or facing spiritual crises. I genuinely believe that FAIR and the old Maxwell Institute have contributed mightily in that regard, but that a lot more can be done, and that, while what they have done is genuinely valuable, they didn't address the pastoral side of things, because they weren't designed to do that and weren't equipped to do it.

So I'm for doing much, much more (and to doing different kinds of things rather than, say, abandoning the things already done and being done).

But I won't conceal the fact that I have profound reservations about specifically what John Dehlin has been doing. Did he help in some cases? Apparently so. I won't dispute that. Did he do harm in many cases? I know for a fact that he did. Does the harm outweigh the good? I strongly suspect so, but I have no scientific data to prove it, and I know, though I find the claim very dubious, that some level the same accusation against FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, and me in particular.

[William Schryver]

It seems that Will is a bit skeptical about this little notice. And that he thinks I am naive.

Of course, I don't think you are naive. I know much better than that. I understand very well that your comments were rooted in a genuine desire to see Dehlin reclaim a genuine faith in the gospel. That said, I am skeptical. Experience has rendered me so.

In any event, time will tell.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I personally do not think John Dehlin compares in any way to "Brother Joseph, President Monson". That you do is interesting.

They compare to the extent that they have all received some financial benefit from causes that they truly believe in. Note I use the term "financial benefit" loosely here as I am quite sure they could have done much better for themselves if they chose other endeavors. All I'm responding to is the assertion from Why Me and others here that a modest living stipend suddenly means that your motives can't be pure.

Edited February 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Louis Midgley]

$40K per year? I would not call that a good living. And your comment is a bit cynical. I recall another apologist who bristled when accused of getting paid by FARMS. I defended that person by the way.

I agree that $40,000 is not much. But he has to have some source of income to (1) support his family and (2) pay for his schooling and (3) hence also support his vast and time-consuming apologetic efforts. Those who teach at an LDS university and hence who are on a kind of "church welfare" can, if they choose, find some time to write essays on LDS topics, this is also true for those who are employed in secular universities or have other full-time employment. I wonder how John manages all he does on a slim income. The usual explanation for such matters has been Smith-Pettit. This explains at least part of how Mike Quinn has managed since he fled BYU. Much of what gets done is by folks who just do after hours what they love doing.

[Scott Lloyd]

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! )

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Joseph had a farm in Nauvoo. When I was there for the Nauvoo Illinois Temple dedication, I stayed in a converted barn that was on land on the eastern outskirts of town that once belonged to Joseph.

And he ran a boarding house called Nauvoo House.

How much of his time was spent farming? Where did he get the funds to buy the farm and build the Nauvoo house? Again, I don't think that Joseph got rich. Given that the Prophet spent so much time in jail, ended up being killed, etc, of course the modest support he got from the church is not his motivation.

ETA: I do appreciate the additional information BTW.

Edited February 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

Lou

I have a sincere question for you. What does a person do who is fairly well read in things LDS, both doctrinal and historical when they are faced with a crisis of faith? Further assume this person was even interested in apologetics and their reading had included such material. In fact, what if they had even tried their hand at some hobby aplologetics. What if they had read, and read info from FAIR and The MI and just found that, while the attempt at answering hard questions was certianly worthy, the conclusions and answers the aplogists gave were not satisfying. What does such a person do then? Who do they turn to? Where can they find empathy? What if they, in order to maintain their activity among the saints needs to modify who they approach to gospel? Who can they talk to about such things?

I look forward to your thoughts and advice.

I am not Lou but my recommendation is that you go back to the basics. It is not how well read one is but what paradigm one views that information from. Because of the spiritual affirmation I have received to the truth of the gospel as promulgated by the COJCOLDS I don't doubt the gospel. It is from that point that I search for answers.

[awyatt]

I have a sincere question for you. What does a person do who is fairly well read in things LDS, both doctrinal and historical when they are faced with a crisis of faith?

I believe that they study their way through it. When I was faced, years ago, with historical information that knocked me for a loop, I had to "fall back and regroup," relying on the things I did know, beyond any doubt, to be true, and then rebuilding from there. And I read everything I could get my hands on related to that historical information, even going to original sources so I didn't have to rely on the interpretation and presentation of others. That is the only way I know of. And it is hard.

What is NOT the way is to gather like-minded doubters and commiserate in your collective doubt. That is the modern fulfillment of the age-old maxim of the blind leading the blind. Nobody benefits, and usually what happens is the community thus formed creates an external "enemy" that they then label as responsible for their condition.

Further assume this person was even interested in apologetics and their reading had included such material. In fact, what if they had even tried their hand at some hobby aplologetics. What if they had read, and read info from FAIR and The MI and just found that, while the attempt at answering hard questions was certianly worthy, the conclusions and answers the aplogists gave were not satisfying. What does such a person do then?

If what they are reading, produced by others, doesn't satisfy, then they have no option other than to go to original sources.

I'll give one small example: Let's say that Brother Davis is bothered by polyandry. He has read everything that the apologists have written and everything the scholars have written, and he is still bothered by it. Brother Davis needs to realize that everything he has read is an interpretation--it is what someone else says about the original historical events. If Brother Davis wants to really understand how the early Saints could involve themselves in polygamy or polyandry, then he needs to find the original sources and allow the original participants to speak for themselves. When he does, he can then reach his own conclusions independent of the intermediaries he had originally been reading.

This isn't dabbling in "hobby apologetics." It is, instead, doing historical research. (It only becomes apolgetics when you personally synthesize that information and present it to others, perhaps with your own conclusions drawn from what you have researched.) And, it should be noted, it is hard work. But it can also be very stimulating, exciting, and enlightening.

Who do they turn to? Where can they find empathy?

Typically they should turn to those they love and trust. This typically means spouse, family, and close personal friends. But they should NEVER turn to someone who encourages them to wallow in victimhood and externalize any angst they are feeling. Historical studies are turbulent waters, but they have been successfully navigated by many, many people. Any empathetic ear who does anything except encourage and support should be fled; cheap empathy is, in the long run, hollow and unfulfilling.

What if they, in order to maintain their activity among the saints needs to modify who they approach to gospel? Who can they talk to about such things?

Certainly not other blind doubters. When the blind lead the blind, they all fall off the cliff together.

-Allen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Teancum:

I, for one, think that much more can and should be done in order to help those with doubts or facing spiritual crises. I genuinely believe that FAIR and the old Maxwell Institute have contributed mightily in that regard, but that a lot more can be done, and that, while what they have done is genuinely valuable, they didn't address the pastoral side of things, because they weren't designed to do that and weren't equipped to do it.

So I'm for doing much, much more (and to doing different kinds of things rather than, say, abandoning the things already done and being done).

But I won't conceal the fact that I have profound reservations about specifically what John Dehlin has been doing. Did he help in some cases? Apparently so. I won't dispute that. Did he do harm in many cases? I know for a fact that he did. Does the harm outweigh the good? I strongly suspect so, but I have no scientific data to prove it, and I know, though I find the claim very dubious, that some level the same accusation against FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, and me in particular.

Dan,

I realize I'm a nobody, but I will say that I have always appreciated your measured responses. I sometimes disagree with your conclusions / politics etc, but I have always found you to be fair, even handed and straight forward. As one who has benefited from Mormon Stories interviews with people like yourself, I must say that I share many of your reservations. While, I enjoy most of John's podcasts I could never bring myself to contribute because of concerns about where he was taking things with his overall "uncorrelated" Mormon movement. I really think that his intentions have been good all along, but also realize at the end of the day, good intentions are not nearly enough.

For the little its worth,

John

Edited February 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Grimace]

I am just full of sayings today but here is another. He who sells his soul for filthy lucre sells it very cheaply indeed.

Easy to say until you are faced with losing your pension and your salary because you have lost your faith. Would you put your livelihood and your future at risk?

[Louis Midgley]

Please explain. Being supported by a tax exempt organization calls into question one's sincerity and motives?

I somehow failed to notice this query. I was trying to be ironic. As I have said elsewhere, $40,000 (even with expenses, if those are covered by his Foundation), are hardly enough to support a family with teenage kids these days. What I meant by "good living" tacked onto that number was a clumsy bit of irony. Think of the saying that "she was good to the troops, but rotten to the corps." I have found that it is very easy to goof while posting on a message board. And then one goof leads to a long stream of invectives and then even to messages in Red

Now for a little lecture on sincerity. Whatever it is, it is very difficult to assess. When a used salesmen tells you she is sincere, one should be alerted to the possibility that one about to purchase has problems. Why? Self-interest is a very stern taskmaster. And the fact is that, when you hear someone say that "X is.sincere," the next word to follow is very likely to be "however" or "but" just as in my little ditty above. There are good reasons for this. And we all know the reasons. People can be uninformed, poorly informed, or flat out wrong, confused, and even incoherent, and be sincere. I think we all know this. Why? Because we have been sincere and wrong.