It Is Not Personal

[awyatt]

I should point out as follow-up to my most recent post (concerning the blind leading the blind), when I was a bishop there were many couples that would come in to talk with me about marital problems. Invariably, in the couples that sought understanding and help from others who had been through marital problems, the problems were magnified.

I would often say that creating a successful marriage is like building a great house. If one wants to build a great house, the person should go to someone who has, in the past, built great houses. You don't go to a bad house builder and expect to get advice that will help you create a great house. If you want great advice on creating a great marriage, you go to those who have created their own great marriages.

So it is with faith issues. If you want to build a great relationship with God, you don't go to those who haven't created a great relationship, because they cannot give you answers. They can give you hollow empathy, but they can't help you get a great relationship with God.

I have no problem with a person having faith issues. But you can't expect to get great advice about relationships with God from someone who doubts God and those whom God has called; it is impossible.

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

That is the modern fulfillment of the age-old maxim of the blind leading the blind.

Or, to use a more modern expression I like just as well, engaging in pooled ignorance.

[ERayR]

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?

Shakespeare:

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

Edited February 27, 2013 by ERayR

[Libs]

I don't believe the claim against you (Dr.

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.

I have never believed the claim that you or John Dehlin, have done more harm than good. People who try to help are sometimes going to fail. Not, necessarily, because of what they have done, but just because the person they're trying to help was not open to it.

As someone who has been helped by both of you, in different ways, I have never believed the charge that either of you were doing some "great harm". People who put themselves out there, trying to help or inform, are bound to have some failures, make some mistakes...people are not perfect.

Plus, when I say I was "helped", I obviously do not mean that I was helped back into activity in the church, as I am still out. But, some of my issues about the church were resolved and my attitude towards the church, greatly improved. That is worth something, to me. Which is another point...what does it actually mean when people say they have been helped...or harmed? Certain people, sometimes, need time away from the church, to really figure things out and gain a new appreciation. So, having someone leave (that you may have been trying to "help") does not automatically constitute a "failure".

On the "helpful side", John's latest podcast with Brian Hale was extremely helpful and informative. I learned a few things from it.

On the "not very helpful side, I thought Greg Smith's article was pretty awful and not really very helpful to those who may be trying to reconcile with the church (especially, if they know and love John Dehlin).

[The Grimace]

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

Sure, we know what Shakespeare would do. But what would YOU do? Would you quit a job with a good pension and salary because you lost your faith in the LDS church? Would you deprive your family of an income and old age support for this one thing?

I find it very odd that a you'd be so cavalier with someone else's income; how would you be if it were you own?

[Teancum]

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.

Thank you Dan. A fair response ( no pun intended).

[awyatt]

Sure, we know what Shakespeare would do. But what would YOU do? Would you quit a job with a good pension and salary because you lost your faith in the LDS church? Would you deprive your family of an income and old age support for this one thing?

I find it very odd that a you'd be so cavalier with someone else's income; how would you be if it were you own?

I would. I have quit very good jobs with very good benefits over disagreements with management. I've been on my own (i.e., running my own company) for the past 15+ years without any benefits at all. And my wife has a chronic illness which makes her uninsurable; she had it when I quit and we've "paid our own way" from that day.

But each person needs to make that decision for themselves.

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Sorry, I don't have detailed information at the ready on that. I just know he did a number of things for a livelihood.

In addition to what I have mentioned, he ran the Red Brick Store, which is where the Relief Society was founded and where the first endowments in this dispensation were administered. The School of the Prophets was held there also, if I recall correctly.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Sorry, I don't have detailed information at the ready on that. I just know he did a number of things for a livelihood.

In addition to what I have mentioned, he ran the Red Brick Store, which is where the Relief Society was founded and where the first endowments in this dispensation were administered. The School of the Prophets was held there also, if I recall correctly.

I must say the more I learn of Joseph, the more impressed I am. This certainly undermines my comparison a bit (maybe substantially more), but it does appear that he did receive some initial capital (though of course I could be wrong).

ETA:I still strongly stand by my statement that receiving a modest salary does not necessarily mean your motives can't be pure.

Edited February 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Pahoran]

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.

Yes, and? Who said anything else? If this is really all you were talking about, then you were arguing against nobody.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Teancum]

Allen thank you for your comments.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sure, we know what Shakespeare would do. But what would YOU do? Would you quit a job with a good pension and salary because you lost your faith in the LDS church? Would you deprive your family of an income and old age support for this one thing?

I find it very odd that a you'd be so cavalier with someone else's income; how would you be if it were you own?

These are always very difficult matters. Would you speak up for your beliefs before a hostile crowd? If your employer asked you to falsify figures, or to cheat in some other way, would you do it? Would you protest if your Alabama town had drinking fountains reserved for whites only? And there are many that are far worse. Would you intervene if you saw somebody being beaten up or raped? Would you speak out if the Gestapo was rounding up Jews in your neighborhood?

It's not easy to give moral advice to others in difficult situations. Or, perhaps better, it's too easy. But it's also wrong to pretend that all choices in such situations are morally equal, or even morally indifferent.

[Scott Lloyd]

I must say the more I learn of Joseph, the more impressed I am. This certainly undermines my comparison a bit (maybe substantially more), but it does appear that he did receive some initial capital (though of course I could be wrong).

ETA:I still strongly stand by my statement that receiving a modest salary does not necessarily mean your motives can't be pure.

I don't dispute that at all.

Nor do I doubt that Joseph and his family received some measure of monetary assistance from the Church. They certainly would have been entitled to it.

[ERayR]

Sure, we know what Shakespeare would do. But what would YOU do? Would you quit a job with a good pension and salary because you lost your faith in the LDS church? Would you deprive your family of an income and old age support for this one thing?

I find it very odd that a you'd be so cavalier with someone else's income; how would you be if it were you own?

You seem to think you know what I would do. I think you would be wrong. I have turned down some very lucrative offers because the opportunity was contrary to church and my personal standards so please do not assume I have not made the hard choices myself.

[Louis Midgley]

I have never believed the claim that you or John Dehlin, have done more harm than good. People who try to help are sometimes going to fail.

On the "not very helpful side, I thought Greg Smith's article was pretty awful and not really very helpful to those who may be trying to reconcile with the church (especially, if they know and love John Dehlin).

It simply does not matter what you believe about Dehlin or Professor Peterson. You have your own view of them. What matters is that Dehlin has operated, while not even believing in God, except in the sense that the support he has gotten for his undertakings he has chosen to call god, and he has admitted that probably more people who he has encountered through his various ventures have ended up leaving the Church. Not liking these well documented fact about someone who helped you is understandable and an indication of your own debt to him, but your quarrel with Greg Smith is not exactly laudable. Why? He has shown in detail some things about Dehlin that you had not noticed. If you had encounter Greg Smith like you have Dan Peterson, then you would have been anxious to defend a dear friend. Those many who have been helped by the FAIR wiki, without being aware of it, have been helped by Greg Smith. And those he has written to directly who have been helped by him, have a very high regard for his information and kindness. But he has no groupies often violently hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ who see him as a liberator from the darkness of a false and controlling Church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It simply does not matter what you believe about Dehlin or Professor Peterson. You have your own view of them. What matters is that Dehlin has operated, while not even believing in God, except in the sense that the support he has gotten for his undertakings he has chosen to call god, and he has admitted that probably more people who he has encountered through his various ventures have ended up leaving the Church. Not liking these well documented fact about someone who helped you is understandable and an indication of your own debt to him, but your quarrel with Greg Smith is not exactly laudable. Why? He has shown in detail some things about Dehlin that you had not noticed. If you had encounter Greg Smith like you have Dan Peterson, then you would have been anxious to defend a dear friend. Those many who have been helped by the FAIR wiki, without being aware of it, have been helped by Greg Smith. And those he has written to directly who have been helped by him, have a very high regard for his information and kindness. But he has no groupies often violently hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ who see him as a liberator from the darkness of a false and controlling Church.

Part of the problem may be how you John and Libs define "helping." I don't think when John or Libs say help they necessarily mean "helped to stay in the church." I think it would be more along the lines of "helped them make peace with themselves." Could be wrong.

Edited February 27, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Grimace]

You seem to think you know what I would do. I think you would be wrong. I have turned down some very lucrative offers because the opportunity was contrary to church and my personal standards so please do not assume I have not made the hard choices myself.

No, I made no assumption about you would do. You gave me a couple of quotes. That's why I kept asking unti you gave me this answer.

[Tacenda]

I think that it means that he has more invested in this than just helping people. He needs the salary and this may skew his reasons for keeping all of it going.

This brings up a question in my mind. Then what if there is a CES employee that struggles with doubt and their livelihood is on the line? Do they throw it all away? Not that that is in anyway comparable to John's situation. Tough question and I wouldn't want that dilemma in my life. I believe John really has the people on his mind and hopefully uses any money for the podcasts etc. Edited February 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[The Grimace]

These are always very difficult matters. Would you speak up for your beliefs before a hostile crowd? If your employer asked you to falsify figures, or to cheat in some other way, would you do it? Would you protest if your Alabama town had drinking fountains reserved for whites only? And there are many that are far worse. Would you intervene if you saw somebody being beaten up or raped? Would you speak out if the Gestapo was rounding up Jews in your neighborhood?

It's not easy to give moral advice to others in difficult situations. Or, perhaps better, it's too easy. But it's also wrong to pretend that all choices in such situations are morally equal, or even morally indifferent.

It is very easy to give pithy advice when others are faced with moral dilemmas; this I agree with. Concerning the outcome of a hard moral decision, morally right and morally wrong are not always clearcut, or even useful, categories.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is very easy to give pithy advice when others are faced with moral dilemmas; this I agree with. Concerning the outcome of a hard moral decision, morally right and morally wrong are not always clearcut, or even useful, categories.

Perhaps not always clear-cut, but I submit that in every instance, morally right vs. morally wrong are not only useful categories but categories of the highest priority in determining choice.

[ERayR]

This brings up a question in my mind. Then what if there is a CES employee that struggles with doubt and their livelihood is on the line? Do they throw it all away? Not that that is in anyway comparable to John's situation. Tough question and I wouldn't want that dilemma in my life. I believe John really has the people on his mind and hopefully uses any money for the podcasts etc.

What is the honest thing to do?

[Kevin Christensen]

There was a comment suggesting that Greg had written to "expose" John Dehlin's work. Actually, all Greg has done is to give a believing, LDS response to what John himself has exposed to the public via a wide range of media. He did so using the tools of scholarship, and brought in some enlightening contexts for interpretation from sociology. That was particularly enlightening and useful. I did not feel like Greg was "exposing" because I'd already had personal exposure to what John himself espouses and exposes for all to hear.

I've listened to the important podcasts with Palmer, Bill Russell, one with John being interviewed about his own story, including his mission and aftermath, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Dan Peterson (interview conducted by Don Wotherspoon), Michael Coe, and two parts of the Brant Gardner interview. I find I tend to get quite wound up listening to Dehlin, regardless of who he talking to, and am not inclined to make it a habit. For my lunch time walks, I prefer Terry Pratchett, Jasper Fforde, Jonathon Stroud, or J. K. Rowling, or such things. I've also spent time looking at the Mormon Stories community responses to Daniel Peterson, Michael Coe, and Brant Gardner. It was clear in many comments on Daniel that he was not like what they expected. Where did the false picture come from? Is there any mystery? I'd commented on the Coe interview, responding in my approach to a John Dehlin complaint about drive by apologetics, where someone would offer a blanket dismissal, no supporting argument, and disappear. So I offered some detailed criticisms on specific points, offering supporting documentation and references. My mention of Allen Christenson's work on Mesoamerican chiasmus remains, along with some emotional diatribes directed my way. But my own comments are gone. I've never been so much as warned on this board, let alone been banned or had comments deleted. Let people speak, tell their own stories, he says. And it is a grand ideal, but does not hold up in practice. what I experienced there was an instance of the epigraph Greg borrows from Daniel. Essentially, "'Shut up,' he explained." I did on a couple of occasions offer to be interviewed. For a while John said he wanted it to happen, but stuff came up, and other interviews came out. I saw the difference in real interest when Blair sought me out, prodded me and prepared himself by reading "Paradigms Crossed." I doubt if John has read anything I've published. Okay, I'm a small fry, and also, not a victim of my church.

There is obvious diversity among the podcasts, and within the Mormon Stories community, but if I were asked to generalize, I'd have to say the overall tone tends to negative and skeptical. One of my friends in the Pittsburgh 2nd Ward has an inactive son who justifies himself to his active mother by sending CDs of negative podcasts. That is where I got the Palmer interview. John talks about balance, but his finger is always on the scale. That is the nature of things. It's not a matter of being objective, but of not kidding ourselves about it. We ought to be willing to expose the implications of our ideology and go from there. Greg is a believer, as as such, has something to say from that perspective. That, it happens, is a Mormon story. And he adds a broader context in which to consider what he quotes. The kinds of things that happen are larger than Dehlin and Mormonism. That helps. It is interesting for me to compare the Folk Devil and Moral panic models with what I get from Rene Girard. Interesting, and more than a little scary.

For years, I've said that I sympathize with John's ideals and concerns. I genuinely hope he does well, and I believe that in general he means well. That does not mean that I'm blind to the implications of what he has personally exposed in his work and actions. Greg's voice is worth reading carefully and taking seriously as another perspective.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 27, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[The Grimace]

What is the honest thing to do?

Why is the honest thing the right thing, in this instance? Is it possible that supporting a family is more important than honesty, in this instance?

Let's focus on this specific case, not cases where someone commits criminal acts to support their family.

[Darren10]

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

The Nauvoo House in Nauvoo, Illinois is a boarding house that Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, began constructing in the 1840s. The boarding house was never completed, but the structure was later converted into a residential home and renamed the Riverside Mansion. The Nauvoo House, as it is referred to today, is part of the Nauvoo Historic District, a National Historic Landmark.

In January 1841, Joseph Smith, Jr. received a revelation with instructions to construct a house in Nauvoo which would be "a resting-place for the weary traveler". The revelation also instructed that the building should be called the Nauvoo House, and set out detailed instructions about how the building of the house would be financed.^[1] George Miller, Lyman Wight, John Snider, and Peter Haws were appointed as the overseers of the project, and they created the Nauvoo House Association on 23 February 1841.

Construction of the Nauvoo House began later in 1841, with Smith placing the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon in the cornerstone of the building.^[2] Construction continued until 1844, when resources were pulled away from the Nauvoo House to concentrate on completion of the Nauvoo Temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_House

If that's accurate, (it's wiki afterall) how much use did Joseph Smith get from it? And was it his personal residence or a place for people in general to "rest"?

[Darren10]

Furthermore, how much was the Nauvoo House part of the upcoming United Order?