It Is Not Personal

[Pahoran]

Also, for those criticizing Greg's piece for being a personal attack, here's why it isn't illegitimately personal:

The primary purpose of the piece is to answer the question--should LDSs trust JD, or is JD on 'our' team? It isn't a review in the sense of discussing why JD does what he does, what makes Mormon Stories tick, etc. (although it might get into those issues in as much as it needs to in order to answer its primary question).

Once we reframe our expectations of what the piece is, it makes sense why the personal is permitted. It also follows that Greg's piece shouldn't be made into more than it is--primarily an attempt to cast JD as "foe" rather than "friend."

Actually the mere existence of the thing, and not its content, is sufficient to demonstrate that fact. When we look at the controversy that has gone on around the "famous unread review" it is noteworthy that those who opposed its publication were always and without exception those who routinely oppose whatever the Church does, and especially what is done by those who defend the Church against attack. They saw Mister Dehlin as one of their team.

In the which, they were right.

However, your trojan horse defence notwithstanding, the fact remains that the review isn't "personal" at all. It deals only with Mister Dehlin's public acts and statements, carried out in his self-created role as a public figure engaged in a public controversy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

I’ve noticed several very strange things about the unfolding of this phase of the Dehlin Affair. First, no one I’ve seen has actually criticized the substantive content of Greg Smith’s articles. No one that I have heard of has claimed that Greg got it wrong. The only claim is that he is incomplete. Second, some of those who criticize Smith’s article do so with a litany of ad hominem insults. Greg (and even more so, his editors) are bad people who have done a bad thing. For some of Dehlin’s supporters, this is a personal vendetta, not a rational discussion of ideas and their implications.

Everyone needs to realize that the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is not personal. The article is a review of Dehlin’s ideas and practices as reflected in Mormon Stories. That’s it. There is absolutely no reason to personalize this, and neither Greg nor his supporters have tried in the slightest to personalize it. We want the discussion to be about ideas. Dehlin and his supporters have consistently cast this as a war between Good Dehlinites, and Bad Danites. (In fact, one Dehlin supporter sent me an email saying he was going to war against me. Really?) It is Dehlin and his supporters who have consistently ignored ideas and attacked personalities.

Imagine if professor X wrote a book about the Roman army. I write a review of his book saying he misunderstood the nature of the Roman army, and give a list of a dozen serious errors in his book. Then imagine that professor X’s friend began to object that X is a really nice man, who volunteers at a homeless shelter each weekend, and is a loving husband and father. The friend then says I am a vile and nasty man for criticizing X, while not mentioning X’s good qualities in my review of his book on the Roman army. My reply would simply be that X’s marvelous character has precisely nothing to do with whether or not he is right about the Roman army. This is, in fact, the reverse ad hominem--to argue that because professor X has many noble and endearing qualities, we should not criticize his book on the Roman army. And it’s hogwash.

Some people have criticized the article saying that it does not present a full picture of Dehlin. That’s very true. But the article never claimed to. And there is not reason to think it should have. Dehlin may be a marvelous and loving father. But this has nothing to do with the review. I’m sure Dehlin sincerely believes he is trying to help people. But this has nothing to do with the review. Dehlin may be a veritable saint among men, but it would still have nothing to do with the review.

Greg did not set out to write a complete biography or intellectual history of Dehlin. If he had Greg would certainly have included things about Dehlin’s wonderful qualities. But, the article is not about Dehlin as a person. It is a critique of Dehlin’s ideas and practices on Mormon Stories. The abysmal failure of many of Dehlin's supporters to separate ideas from personalities means that their only response is about the wickedness of Greg and his supporters.

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand the intent and purpose behind what Greg wrote, but some will unfortunately take it personally anyway. I guess it's just part of the nature of the beast. When two different competing ideologies are involved, there are bound to be some clashes.

Much of the reaction surrounding Greg Smith's piece stems largely from the fact that they would rather not have John Dehlin and Mormon Stories critiqued at all, presumably because it might cause some Latter-day Saints to rethink what he is doing, or cause some to come to the conclusion that MS is not completely harmless, or that JD is not as neutral and objective and balanced as he portrays himself. At least that's how I see it.

The Church and kingdom of God on the earth deserve to be defended, and I saw Greg Smith doing that.

[Teancum]

If you can substantiate your claim with specific quotes, please do so. Until then, you clearly have nothing to say. Feel free to stop wasting our bandwidth.

Regards,

Pahoran

Do you own the board? Is it your place to disinvite someone to post? Why don't you try to take yourself a little less seriously?

[rockpond]

I've been listening to Dehlin's podcasts for years. I'm a Facebook friend and have followed him in that format as well, for years.

He's been a very positive influence on my life and I'm proud of my association with him. His work has helped keep me IN the church and does not strike me as apostate. While he's made mistakes that he admits to, I think he's had a net positive impact.

I don't see the resemblance between the real life John that I know and the one represented here by many posters.

Edited February 26, 2013 by rockpond

[Pahoran]

I've been listening to Dehlin's podcasts for years. I'm a Facebook friend and have followed him in that format as well, for years.

He's been a very positive influence on my life and I'm proud of my association with him. His work has helped keep me IN the church ans does not strike me as apostate. While he's made mistakes that he admits to, I think he's had a net positive impact.

I don't see the resemblance between the real life John that I know and the one represented here by many posters.

That's good to know, Rockpond, although I must say that I really hope you don't follow Mister Dehlin's advice about how to conduct yourself in a Temple Recommend interview.

Based upon what Mister Dehlin said to the Larsens, it appears that he likes having people like you around, because that enables him to reach a larger audience, and influence them away from the Church. (See the Smith review, pages 33-36.) If "Palmer is worth a Bushman," i.e. interviewing Bushman is a price worth paying to get people to listen to Palmer, then it seems no stretch to conclude that a few hundred leave-takers is worth a couple of Rockponds, from Mister Dehlin's POV.

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

... the review isn't "personal" at all. It deals only with Mister Dehlin's public acts and statements, carried out in his self-created role as a public figure engaged in a public controversy.

This is the simple, incontrovertible fact that continues to elude those who, ironically, had reached their conclusions long before the article was ever published.

It was John Dehlin who deliberately made currency of his putative temple worthiness in order to legitimize the ideas about Mormonism that he has been publicly advocating for many years now. Dehlin deliberately connected these things, all as part of the ideology he has been publicly promoting within the Latter-day Saint community. It would have been delinquent of Smith to not recognize these connections and address them accordingly in his examination of the Dehlin ideology.

[Libs]

It was John Dehlin who deliberately made currency of his putative temple worthiness in order to legitimize the ideasabout Mormonism that he has been publicly advocating for many years now.

This is purely speculation and I think John would very much disagree with that kind of characterization of what he was doing.

I never connected his Temple worthiness (or lack of, later on) with anything other than a part of where he was and, later, his struggles with the church and how those struggles deteriorated his participation in the church.

It seems like he is being painted as someone who tried to make money and draw attention, based on his church affiliation....and, knowing John, I don't believe that.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Libs

[rockpond]

That's good to know, Rockpond, although I must say that I really hope you don't follow Mister Dehlin's advice about how to conduct yourself in a Temple Recommend interview.

Based upon what Mister Dehlin said to the Larsens, it appears that he likes having people like you around, because that enables him to reach a larger audience, and influence them away from the Church. (See the Smith review, pages 33-36.) If "Palmer is worth a Bushman," i.e. interviewing Bushman is a price worth paying to get people to listen to Palmer, then it seems no stretch to conclude that a few hundred leave-takers is worth a couple of Rockponds, from Mister Dehlin's POV.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't see why we should fear an interview with either Bushman or Palmer (and I've listened to both).

Dehlin's goal was not "leave-takers".

[rockpond]

This is purely speculation and I think John would very much disagree with that kind of characterization of what he was doing.

I never connected his Temple worthiness (or lack of, later on) with anything other than a part of where he was and, later, his struggles with the church and how those struggles deteriorated his participation in the church.

It seems like he is being painted as someone who tried to make money and draw attention, based on his church affiliation....and, knowing John, I don't believe that.

I second what Libs is saying. I never heard/read John use his temple worthiness as a means of legitimizing his ideas.

[DH]

The attack articles are "not personal?" Hogwash!

John Dehlin is an active member of the Church who has done a great service by producing the Mormon Stories podcasts. He had a faith crisis, talked about it openly, and decided to remain in the Church. We can learn from him. He has also brought other people's concerns into the light and tried to help them remain in the Church, or at least not be antagonistic to it. It seems to me that if one really cares about the Church, they would honestly try to understand why some people have concerns with it and sometimes choose to leave. Rather than attacking people like Dehlin, it would be better to address those concerns in a spirit of honesty, openness, and compassion. We should be thanking John Dehlin for his service to the Church, not trying to tear down his good work.

[wenglund]

The attack articles are "not personal?" Hogwash!

John Dehlin is an active member of the Church who has done a great service by producing the Mormon Stories podcasts. He had a faith crisis, talked about it openly, and decided to remain in the Church. We can learn from him. He has also brought other people's concerns into the light and tried to help them remain in the Church, or at least not be antagonistic to it. It seems to me that if one really cares about the Church, they would honestly try to understand why some people have concerns with it and sometimes choose to leave. Rather than attacking people like Dehlin, it would be better to address those concerns in a spirit of honesty, openness, and compassion. We should be thanking John Dehlin for his service to the Church, not trying to tear down his good work.

I don't see how your second paragraph supports in any way your first paragraph. It simply suggest that you may not correctly grasp what Bill meant by "personal" or even what the article is all about. Frankly, your comment doesn't address the substance of the article, but merely seems to parrot what has long been said about the article before it was ever read.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 26, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I've been listening to Dehlin's podcasts for years....His work has helped keep me IN the church and does not strike me as apostate.

As a help in keeping you IN the Church, was Dehlin instrumental in your public advocacy for same-sex marriage and pining for the day when gay couples will be married in the temple?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

As a help in keeping you IN the Church, was Dehlin instrumental in your public advocacy for same-sex marriage and pining for the day when gay couples will be married in the temple?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nope - that was all me.

[Daniel Peterson]

Were I Dehlin's leader and were I to rely on that paper only to decide what to do about Dehlin I would have no choice but to excommunicate him.

But no even minimally responsible Church leader would come to such a decision about someone within his ecclesiastical stewardship based only on reading about him.

And no Mormon author would expect or anticipate such a thing.

[ERayR]

This is the simple, incontrovertible fact that continues to elude those who, ironically, had reached their conclusions long before the article was ever published.

It was John Dehlin who deliberately made currency of his putative temple worthiness in order to legitimize the ideas about Mormonism that he has been publicly advocating for many years now. Dehlin deliberately connected these things, all as part of the ideology he has been publicly promoting within the Latter-day Saint community. It would have been delinquent of Smith to not recognize these connections and address them accordingly in his examination of the Dehlin ideology.

As I have posted somewhere before what one comes away from Greg's review with depends on their personal biases.

[ERayR]

This is purely speculation and I think John would very much disagree with that kind of characterization of what he was doing.

I never connected his Temple worthiness (or lack of, later on) with anything other than a part of where he was and, later, his struggles with the church and how those struggles deteriorated his participation in the church.

It seems like he is being painted as someone who tried to make money and draw attention, based on his church affiliation....and, knowing John, I don't believe that.

From a total strangers point of view Will Schryver's assessment is pretty close.

[ERayR]

The attack articles are "not personal?" Hogwash!

John Dehlin is an active member of the Church who has done a great service by producing the Mormon Stories podcasts. He had a faith crisis, talked about it openly, and decided to remain in the Church. We can learn from him. He has also brought other people's concerns into the light and tried to help them remain in the Church, or at least not be antagonistic to it. It seems to me that if one really cares about the Church, they would honestly try to understand why some people have concerns with it and sometimes choose to leave. Rather than attacking people like Dehlin, it would be better to address those concerns in a spirit of honesty, openness, and compassion. We should be thanking John Dehlin for his service to the Church, not trying to tear down his good work.

In all this he has also demonized some very good people who try to keep people in the church. Then he complains when he is criticized for it.

Edited February 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Tacenda]

I second what Libs is saying. I never heard/read John use his temple worthiness as a means of legitimizing his ideas.

I agree, maybe he has him mixed up with someone else.

[Libs]

From a total strangers point of view Will Schryver's assessment is pretty close.

I disagree. He couldn't be more wrong. And, how is a "total stranger" even going to know?

[Libs]

In all this he has also demonized some very good people who try to keep people in the church. Then he complains when he is criticized for it.

Frankly, I think this article gives some legitimacy to John's complaints. I've never read anything like it.

I was very vocal about defending the apologists, John was attacking, and I still believe that he was over the top in his criticisms. I never could find much, if anything, that lived up to what he was claiming...at least, not from Daniel Peterson, of whom I have read quite a lot. I read almost everything he puts out, plus I have watched his Book of Mormon videos and others. I just couldn't see it.

But, if John is complaining about articles like this one (if there are, indeed, more similar to it)..I finally understand what he's talking about.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Libs

[Sky]

I second what Libs is saying. I never heard/read John use his temple worthiness as a means of legitimizing his ideas.

But he possibly used his temple recommend status as a means to imply ecclesiastical endorsement (from his Priesthood leaders) of his activities (see pages 36-42 from the Greg Smith review).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But he possibly used his temple recommend status as a means to imply ecclesiastical endorsement (from his Priesthood leaders) of his activities (see pages 36-42 from the Greg Smith review).

No. He says that he doesn't hold a recommend currently, his leaders are aware of what he does, and his leaders "continue to encourage me to remain active, and to feel welcome at church." Greg then says "but the implied ecclesiastical endorsement of his activities is still there." This seems like an uncharitable reading. All that is implied is that his leaders aren't disciplining him and want him at church. The next few pages take Dehlin to task for saying to the Larsens: "I don’t have a temple recommend right now. I’m temple worthy, but I don’t pay tithing." It seems to me that John is saying he isn't out living a hedonistic lifestyle and is keeping the word of wisdom. Maybe I'm wrong, but based on all the interviews I have heard him in that's how I would take it.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Sky]

No. He says that he doesn't hold a recommend currently, his leaders are aware of what he does, and his leaders "continue to encourage me to remain active, and to feel welcome at church." Greg then says "but the implied ecclesiastical endorsement of his activities is still there." This seems like an uncharitable reading. All that is implied is that his leaders aren't disciplining him and want him at church. The next few pages take Dehlin to task for saying to the Larsens: "I don’t have a temple recommend right now. I’m temple worthy, but I don’t pay tithing." It seems to me that John is saying he isn't out living a hedonistic lifestyle and is keeping the word of wisdom. Maybe I'm wrong, but based on all the interviews I have heard him in that's how I would take it.

Is there something I'm missing?

But more is required for a TR than simply not living a hedonistic lifestyle and keeping the Word of Wisdom.

From the review:

Dehlin thus confuses the matter when he claims to be “temple worthy” except for tithing. In the same interview, he outlines additional convictions which would likely disqualify him:

1. God: “I’m at the point where I realize that God, the probability that God exists is quite low. . . . As I look at the probability that everything that we have here is just random, and there’s no purpose or meaning to it, that actually seems almost as absurd as the idea that there is some type of God. Those seem almost equally absurd to me. . . . there has been enough support for what I’ve tried to do that I just call that God. I slap the ‘God’ label on that, fully aware that there is a low probability that there actually is anything. . . . I’m aware that might be completely a product of my imagination.”

2. Jesus Christ: “I have no idea whether Jesus existed or not. Anyone who says they know, it’s 
just a matter of faith. I think the probability that Jesus actually really lived and was 
resurrected is actually really low. And I’m actually not invested in that.”

3. Atonement: “The atonement: I just don’t understand the atonement. This idea that we have to punish someone else for a bunch of other people’s mistakes, that just bothers me, the fact 
that it is even necessary bothers me. . . . Punishing that guy over there for what I did doesn’t 
make sense at all, and so none of that makes sense.”

There are, in fact, a number of temple-recommend questions that ask about faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. A belief in Christ’s salvific role is also vital, as is faith in the restoration of the gospel and a commitment to sustain current Church leaders as holding unique and exclusive priesthood keys. If a member honestly does not share these beliefs, that is not cause for condemnation or critique. What is troubling, however, is Dehlin’s insistence that he is eligible for a recommend but for tithing—the claim is false, based upon his own report. If what he says about his nonbelief is accurate—and there is no reason to question it—then his claim to be temple-recommend worthy cannot be.

The situation becomes more remarkable in light of Dehlin’s long history of giving guidance to disaffected members on how to get a temple recommend despite their disbelief in the basics. In a paper targeted at those with doubts, he included the disclaimer that “I never advocate lying.” “But,” he goes on, “I would encourage you to use extreme caution when speaking to church members—especially church leaders—about your issues regarding church history, doctrine or culture. . . . Be very careful before you open up to your bishop about these matters. Once you do, there is likely no ‘stuffing the genie back in the bottle.’” It is not plain, however, how hiding one’s doubts during a temple recommend interview is much different from lying.

The main issue of why the Temple Recommend information was discussed was because of Dehlin giving advice to people on how to get a TR, even when they have serious doubts and may have to be less-than-honest in order to get through the questions.

At the end of this part of the review, Greg concludes with this:

If Dehlin or others are not, at present, in harmony with the temple requirements, that is no obstacle to continued membership in the Church or the faithful fulfillment of many Church callings. What is more significant, however, is Dehlin’s distortion of the interview’s purpose and intent. Believing members regard these issues and concerns as sacred. The leaders conducting the interviews feel a solemn duty to protect members from making promises they will break. But, Dehlin urges his audience to hide the truth, and gives them the intellectual tools to justify dishonesty.

[Glenn101]

No. He says that he doesn't hold a recommend currently, his leaders are aware of what he does, and his leaders "continue to encourage me to remain active, and to feel welcome at church." Greg then says "but the implied ecclesiastical endorsement of his activities is still there." This seems like an uncharitable reading. All that is implied is that his leaders aren't disciplining him and want him at church. The next few pages take Dehlin to task for saying to the Larsens: "I don’t have a temple recommend right now. I’m temple worthy, but I don’t pay tithing." It seems to me that John is saying he isn't out living a hedonistic lifestyle and is keeping the word of wisdom. Maybe I'm wrong, but based on all the interviews I have heard him in that's how I would take it.

Is there something I'm missing?

From the review, page 36:

"The counterpoint to Dehlin’s crises of faith has been his repeated accounts of what his bishop and

stake president reportedly think of all this. From 2009 through 2010, his website announced:

I remain an active, temple recommend-holding member of the LDS church. My wife and I

currently teach in the Primary and really, really enjoy it. I love both the church and its members

deeply—and sincerely hope to see the church strengthen and prosper in the coming years. . . .116

This description remained unchanged throughout 2010.117 Dehlin uses his temple recommend–holding

status as implied reassurance: neither Dehlin nor his bishop or stake president consider him ineligible. In

mid-2010, Dehlin elsewhere characterized himself as “active in the church” and “currently hold[ing] a

temple recommend. I consider myself to be a believer in God, and in Jesus."

If you home in on just that aspect of the article, and if that is all there is to it, you may have a point. However, Greg's opinion was not formed just by that one piece of information. But Greg sets the stage for that before and after that bit on the temple recommend worthiness bit.

A picture has emerged of a person having serious doubts about the church. Those doubts lead him to his Mormon Stories series of podcasts for whatever reason(s). One of the effects of his remaining in the church, whether calculated, or not, is to seemingly give his efforts a shade of credulity not open to an avowed ex-mormon. That is one of the aspects that Greg takes great care to document.

Glenn

[Freedom]

I'm not sure how your academic field is, but in mine no serious journal would publish a piece that subjects aims of understanding and contextualization to determining whether or not so-and-so is a hypocrite.

On this point I disagree. I have read many academic papers that dismiss another's proposed theories and postulations on such grounds. The environmental movement is an example of this. An environmentalist makes a proclamation of a standard we should all live, and then it is found out that such a person lives in complete contrast to their idealistic standards. Academia is well served when hypocrites are removed so that the legitimate scholars can rise up. Hypocrites are liars, and lying makes for bad scholarship.