It Is Not Personal

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

That is of course true. The question is what did Dehlin mean? I'd argue he was referring to the non belief statements in the interview. John says he is temple worthy except for tithing. Since many members think the first thing people do upon losing testimony is sin, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say I'm not off sinning (I.e. if not for disbelief I could get a recommend). I see this often on NOM / staylds forums - posters are just trying to say the desire to sin doesn't drive their doubts. The fact that John goes on to immediately state he doesn't believe in God, and he also doesn't have a recommend (whereas the year prior when he had more faith/belief/testimony) supports this IMHO. I cant say for certain my interpretation is correct, but It would have been nice if Dehlin was given a chance to clarify (not sure if Greg Smith thought to ask for clarifying info or not).

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:

Dehlin explicitly states not to lie in his article. I'm curious. Have you read the article in question?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

From the review, page 36:

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

I definitely think John has many flaws (just like the rest of us - except he made all of his public). Maybe your interpretation is correct. I just don't see it. John has been in various places all throughout his faith journey. I certainly never felt like John was trying to add credulity to his movement through his church status.

Edited February 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MormonMason]

It's funny you say this isn't personal but that's all I seemed to get. After reading the review the strangest thought occurred to me. This type of review would only be possible if there was organized information gathering about certain people to build a dossier to use against them. In his "not personal" & "hot a hit piece" review of Mormon Stories the author cites John's personal postings from exmormon.org, postmormon.org, thefoyer.org, LDS.net, mormonexpression.com, reddit.com, mormonstories.org, mormon discussions.com, and this board. In addition, Smith cites John's personal Facebook wall 45 times. Here is an example:

What I noticed with this footnote, along with quite a few others, is that he is quoting deleted posts from John's personal Facebook. So Smith was collecting John Dehlin's personal postings on the internet, including his personal Facebook wall, for years to build a dossier for his not personal review.

If he had put at least as much effort into his coverage of Mormon Stories content you wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing why it's not personal.

Phaedrus

With him censoring the other side of the argument as he does, it was a wise idea to keep copies of everything. I have posted there only to have posts vanish into thin air. Others I know have had the same happen to them. Unfortunately, not all us seemingly had the smarts to back up copies of said posts. But, if you want to prove that Dehlin is using censorship, you have to keep copies of the old pages for comparison purposes.

Someone I know sent me screenshots after he started noticing his posts disappearing. Anything that answered the claims of the critics he left up more than adequately quietly disappeared from his pages. This was very readily apparent in the area dealing with Brant Gardner's interview on the Book of Mormon. There were a number of posts that showed certain things that were not wanted on the pages, even though completely within rules and civility, because they clearly answered a myriad of the negative claims on the page. One by one they started disappearing. Only one portion of one of the more substantial ones was saved, substantial because it clearly demonstrated that it was not unheard of in the ancient world to hear the idea of pulling chariots with deer and that not all chariots in the ancient world had wheels!

So, yeah, if you notice censorship going on and you want to prove it later, you need to keep both hard and electronic copies of everything just like Greg did. I only wish more people, including me, did the same. It is nothing more nefarious than this.

Edited February 26, 2013 by MormonMason

[SeekingUnderstanding]

With him censoring the other side of the argument as he does, it was a wise idea to keep copies of everything. I have posted there only to have posts vanish into thin air. Others I know have had the same happen to them. Unfortunately, not all us seemingly had the smarts to back up copies of said posts. But, if you want to prove that Dehlin is using censorship, you have to keep copies of the old pages for comparison purposes.

Someone I know sent me screenshots after he started noticing his posts disappearing. Anything that answered the claims of the critics he left up more than adequately quietly disappeared from his pages. This was very readily apparent in the area dealing with Brant Gardner's interview on the Book of Mormon. There were a number of posts that showed certain things that were not wanted on the pages, even though completely within rules and civility, because they clearly answered a myriad of the negative claims on the page. One by one they started disappearing. Only one portion of one of the more substantial ones was saved, substantial because it clearly demonstrated that it was not unheard of in the ancient world to hear the idea of pulling chariots with deer and that not all chariots in the ancient world had wheels!

So, yeah, if you notice censorship going on and you want to prove it later, you need to keep both hard and electronic copies of everything just like Greg did. I only wish more people, including me, did the same. It is nothing more nefarious than this.

This is one of my biggest problems with Dehlin. He criticizes the church for not being open and honest, but then turns around and deletes things that paint him in a less than favorable light.

[phaedrus ut]

So, yeah, if you notice censorship going on and you want to prove it later, you need to keep both hard and electronic copies of everything just like Greg did. I only wish more people, including me, did the same. It is nothing more nefarious than this.

The difference being it wasn't Greg keeping track of his own content or even discussions he was participating in. It was him, or someone else, saving Dehlin's comments and posts on his personal Facebook page. While it may seem like thorough research to some, to others it may seem a bit obsessive and stalkerish. Especially since Dehin wasn't the focus only "Mormon Stories".

Phaedrus

[MormonMason]

This is one of my biggest problems with Dehlin. He criticizes the church for not being open and honest, but then turns around and deletes things that paint him in a less than favorable light.

That's just it. The posts did not address him at all. They directly addressed the points being raised by the critics he left up on the pages. Those kinds of posts disappeared. Soon afterward, any post that went up from the same computer was marked as awaiting moderation. Not more than a day later those posts marked for moderation disappeared into cyberspace. These are the actions of one who does not want readers to see answers to such questions relative to functional translations and so forth. Last time I check the page, only a couple posts out of over a dozen still remained. But most all of the critical posts remained. That is censorship and controlling the flow of information, plain and simple.

Sad to say it, but I am not sure his return to full activity is sincere. I knew other people over the years that did that sort of thing, too. In each and every case they did it so they could get closer to doubting members to influence them to actually leave and/or do as they were doing--undermining the Church from within. This went on for years before Bishops and Stake Presidents got wise to it. Even after that some still remained on the rolls of the Church and even admitted that they can better reach members to create doubt by remaining members than by taking their names off the rolls of the Church. Yet, some Bishops allow them to stay members because they have some misguided hope that they will one day stop their nonsense and get with the program. None I ever knew did that. When I was in Ward leadership positions I almost never allowed that sort of thing to go on unchecked for long. But, alas...

I truly hope I am wrong about what Dehlin is doing so far as his desire to return to activity is concerned. If he truly is sincere then more power to him. But, if not, then I hope that he exposes himself, continues his censorship on his pages in a continued show of his true loyalties and intents of his heart, and that, if so, the Brethren do what needs to be done sooner than later to protect the Church. I have seen entire Wards wrenched apart because of leaders who don't act to protect the Church when it needs to happen. Sadly but not unsurprisingly, it is not all that different from what often happened in the Book of Mormon when from time to time even the children of Church leaders work to destroy the Church from within.

[MormonMason]

The difference being it wasn't Greg keeping track of his own content or even discussions he was participating in. It was him, or someone else, saving Dehlin's comments and posts on his personal Facebook page. While it may seem like thorough research to some, to others it may seem a bit obsessive and stalkerish. Especially since Dehin wasn't the focus only "Mormon Stories".

Phaedrus

Perhaps. But, if you want to be thorough that sometimes is the kind of approach that needs to be taken, particularly with someone with the proclivities to delete posts and engage in frequent, unbalanced censorship, and to alter evidence after the fact.

[phaedrus ut]

Unfortunately for your artificial indignation, it wasn't "the same type of information." It was about Mister Dehlin's public activities in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ.

If it was "90% focused on [my] personal life" then it would certainly not be "a similar review."

And if you think it would be, then you just can't read.

Ok great. Please consider this a retraction of Pahoran's previous vigilant attempts to distance his online persona from his apologetic efforts. As long as you're publishing less than 90% about his personal life everything is fair game. I look forward to the non-hit-piece about you.

Now Phaedrus: can you prove that anything he quoted was archived before that time? Because if not, your childish conspiracy theory fails immediately.

Yes I can, and so can anyone else following along. You can use internet caches and digital libraries like archive.org to view publicly available information posted on the internet and when it disappeared. It make no sense why Dehlin would go back and delete 12 month old facebook posts shortly after smith starts his research. As we saw with his recent interactions with his "reviewers" if you're going to delete something you're going to do it while it's recent not something that is extremely aged.

Phaedrus

[Robert F. Smith]

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. ...............................

In reading Gregory Smith’s (he’s no relation to me and I have never met him) piece on John Dehlin in the latest Interpreter, I was struck by Dehlin’s genuine pride in not bothering to read widely so that his knowledge base would be similar to many of his podcast listeners — tabula rasa — and how starkly different that is from the best interviewers, such as long-time host Doug Fabrizio, whose well-informed interviews for “Radio West” on KUER are always on point. Charlie Rose does the same for his wide variety of nightly television interviews. It is a mystery to me why Dehlin is so anti-intellectual and proud of it!! And he is in graduate school?

The other remarkable thing about Dehlin is his lack of familiarity with the basics of LDS scripture and theology. On the one hand, it is no wonder that, with such false premises, he reaches such extraordinarily false conclusions. On the other hand, with such hard-cast a priori notions about Mormonism, it is likewise no surprise that he can learn nothing from well-informed and genial experts such as Brant Gardner (I listened to the whole 5-hour interview and came away astonished at Dehlin’s insistence on the pertinence of his own lack of basic information).

I can think of no more apt illustration of Dehlin’s utter failure to produce useful interviews than he and Mike Coe wallowing, as it were, in the mire of their mutual ignorance. A skilled interviewer would have come to such an interview prepared to ask Coe relevant, substantive questions — thus drawing upon Coe’s considerable expertise and allowing all of us to learn something.

[Sky]

That is of course true. The question is what did Dehlin mean? I'd argue he was referring to the non belief statements in the interview. John says he is temple worthy except for tithing. Since many members think the first thing people do upon losing testimony is sin, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say I'm not off sinning (I.e. if not for disbelief I could get a recommend). I see this often on NOM / staylds forums - posters are just trying to say the desire to sin doesn't drive their doubts. The fact that John goes on to immediately state he doesn't believe in God, and he also doesn't have a recommend (whereas the year prior when he had more faith/belief/testimony) supports this IMHO. I cant say for certain my interpretation is correct, but It would have been nice if Dehlin was given a chance to clarify (not sure if Greg Smith thought to ask for clarifying info or not).

Dehlin explicitly states not to lie in his article. I'm curious. Have you read the article in question?

I assume you're talking about the Greg Smith piece. Yes, I have read it. Not sure why you would think I haven't.

When all is said and done, you're either eligible for a Temple Recommend or you're not. It just seems to me like a rather dubious thing to say..."I'm temple worthy except for...this or that or the other."

Greg Smith makes the case in his review that Dehlin probably wouldn't be eligible for a TR, and that Dehlin gives guidance to disaffected members on how to get a temple recommend in spite of their disbelief in the basics. Is this not dishonest? Or do you find the evidence he presented not convincing?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Sky

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I assume you're talking about the Greg Smith piece. Yes, I have read it. Not sure why you would think I haven't.

Sorry it was late and I am posting from an iPad. I was referring to John Dehlin's article written several years ago, quoted in Greg's piece entitled "How to Stay in the LDS Church After a Major Challenge toYour Faith."

When all is said and done, you're either eligible for a Temple Recommend or you're not. It just seems to me like a rather dubious thing to say..."I'm temple worthy except for...this or that or the other."

That's fine, but I'd encourage you to consider a few things. At the time of the interview in question John didn't have a temple recommend and freely admits this. When asked about his status in the church, he makes the comment he is recommend worthy except tithing. Again this language is not precise, but it is a podcast interview for crying out loud. He spends the next few minutes of the interview explaining why he won't pay tithing, doesn't believe in God, Jesus etc. He's basically saying, I keep the commandments except xyz. It's fine if you don't see it this way, but hopefully you can at least see this as a possibility.

Greg Smith makes the case in his review that Dehlin probably wouldn't be eligible for a TR, and that Dehlin gives guidance to disaffected members on how to get a temple recommend in spite of their disbelief in the basics. Is this not dishonest? Or do you find the evidence he presented not convincing?

Yes Greg makes his point very well that at this moment Dehlin should not have a recommend. At the same time, Dehiln does not have a recommend!? So I don't get what there is to be upset about.

As for Dehlin's advise, have you read Dehlin's staylds article? I don't think it says someone who believes like Dehlin did in early 2012 should be able to get a recommend. By early 2012 I believe that Dehlin had separated himself from the whole staylds concept.

Again Dehlin's flaws are many. I think the most damning thing is thought suppression as laid out by mormon mason above. I also think his war on apologetics is unfounded. I think though when John's belief has been all over the map (as is quite typical for one who doubts) it would be wise and charitable to ask for clarification from John when comparing statements from 2012 to statements much earlier in his journey.

Edited February 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Grimace]

If we believe that the Lord's anointed are those who have been anointed in the temple ceremony (a reasonable and common interpretation), then we must also believe that Greg Smith's article is in violation of the command to speak no evil of the Lord's anointed.

Regardless, the text lies before us and is open to critical review. Let's assume, for a moment, that the piece was not motivated by a personal vendetta. Why, then, the lack of balance? It's hard to deny the article portrays John in a light that hardly flatters.

What, then, is the motivation? Why would a doctor practicing rural medicine in Raymond, Alberta, care to write 170+ pages about one man?

It's not personal. OK, as I said, let's assume that the article is not personal. The article attempts to discredit John Dehlin's work and his views and his ideas. But, as stated, not personal, just an attempt to show John Dehlin to be....well, what? Wrong? Evil? Deceitful? Unworthy?

Perhaps the piece is personal, but not a personal attack on John Dehlin. Perhaps Greg Smith et al. have taken John's work personally. Perhaps there has been a real hurt felt by Greg, and that motivated him to write the piece. I mean, after reading the articles, it is clear there was no academic or scholarly motivation; the article is far to amateur and far too superficial in it's attempted application of sociological theory. The author's cursory knowledge of the field is betrayed by his writing. The most one can say is that Smith is good at using Google and Facebook, but I'm sure that wasn't his intention, to show off his internet skills.

Until the author speaks, I suppose we'll never know the motivation, but I'd suggest that we all stop pretending that this is a fair, balanced, or even ethical, approach to apologetics.

Commenting on the temple worthiness of others here is not appropriate.

[Storm Rider]

If we believe that the Lord's anointed are those who have been anointed in the temple ceremony (a reasonable and common interpretation), then we must also believe that Greg Smith's article is in violation of the command to speak no evil of the Lord's anointed.

Regardless, the text lies before us and is open to critical review. Let's assume, for a moment, that the piece was not motivated by a personal vendetta. Why, then, the lack of balance? It's hard to deny the article portrays John in a light that hardly flatters.

What, then, is the motivation? Why would a doctor practicing rural medicine in Raymond, Alberta, care to write 170+ pages about one man?

It's not personal. OK, as I said, let's assume that the article is not personal. The article attempts to discredit John Dehlin's work and his views and his ideas. But, as stated, not personal, just an attempt to show John Dehlin to be....well, what? Wrong? Evil? Deceitful? Unworthy?

Perhaps the piece is personal, but not a personal attack on John Dehlin. Perhaps Greg Smith et al. have taken John's work personally. Perhaps there has been a real hurt felt by Greg, and that motivated him to write the piece. I mean, after reading the articles, it is clear there was no academic or scholarly motivation; the article is far to amateur and far too superficial in it's attempted application of sociological theory. The author's cursory knowledge is betrayed by his writing. The most one can say is that he is good at using Google and Facebook, but I'm sure that wasn't his intention, to show his internet skills.

Until the author speaks, I suppose we'll never know the motivation, but I'd suggest that we all stop pretending that this is a fair, balanced, or even ethical, approach to apologetics.

I had to laugh out loud when I read your first assertion about the anointed. Maybe you would like to pick up that rock and cast stones or maybe fetch the firewood now and get the stake ready. I am sorry, but this is just too lame and I pretty much discount every other thing you wrote as the whining allegations of the desperately eager to claim victimhood for another rant. It still makes me laugh that you would even attempt such....I give up. This is just too silly to waste further my time. God bless you.

[rockpond]

In reading Gregory Smith’s (he’s no relation to me and I have never met him) piece on John Dehlin in the latest Interpreter, I was struck by Dehlin’s genuine pride in not bothering to read widely so that his knowledge base would be similar to many of his podcast listeners — tabula rasa — and how starkly different that is from the best interviewers, such as long-time host Doug Fabrizio, whose well-informed interviews for “Radio West” on KUER are always on point. Charlie Rose does the same for his wide variety of nightly television interviews. It is a mystery to me why Dehlin is so anti-intellectual and proud of it!! And he is in graduate school?

The other remarkable thing about Dehlin is his lack of familiarity with the basics of LDS scripture and theology. On the one hand, it is no wonder that, with such false premises, he reaches such extraordinarily false conclusions. On the other hand, with such hard-cast a priori notions about Mormonism, it is likewise no surprise that he can learn nothing from well-informed and genial experts such as Brant Gardner (I listened to the whole 5-hour interview and came away astonished at Dehlin’s insistence on the pertinence of his own lack of basic information).

I can think of no more apt illustration of Dehlin’s utter failure to produce useful interviews than he and Mike Coe wallowing, as it were, in the mire of their mutual ignorance. A skilled interviewer would have come to such an interview prepared to ask Coe relevant, substantive questions — thus drawing upon Coe’s considerable expertise and allowing all of us to learn something.

Dehlin never put himself out there as a theologian nor as an amazing interviewer. I think he was pretty obvious about who he was. And I, for one, really appreciate who he was and the good that he accomplished.

[ERayR]

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.

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

By his words.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is one of my biggest problems with Dehlin. He criticizes the church for not being open and honest, but then turns around and deletes things that paint him in a less than favorable light.

And tries to exercise prior restraint, as with the attempted suppression of the Greg Smith piece.

[awyatt]

I think he was pretty obvious about who he was.

I don't think it is as obvious as you may want it to be. Were it obvious, there wouldn't have been so much discussion in Mormon, NOM, and ex-Mormon communities over the past 5+ years as to who JD is and what he was trying to accomplish.

The problem is that JD was different things to different audiences. And, unless you were to insert yourself into all those audiences (as GS did), you'd never know that.

And I, for one, really appreciate who he was and the good that he accomplished.

For some, JD accomplished good; there is no doubt of that. For others he caused pain and suffering; there is no doubt of that, either. The same can be said of apologists, as well. I find it bothersome that JD castigates (very literally) apologists as the biggest, most harmful effect in the Church today (complete with testimonials on PowerPoint), yet refuses to accept any responsibility for the negative effect he, too, has had on many.

Apologists are not neutral. (Duh!) But neither is John, although he has ALWAYS tried to portray himself as such. Why has he tried so diligently to foster that image? I'm grateful to GS for pulling back the curtain and asking if the image is real.

[ERayR]

Dehlin never put himself out there as a theologian nor as an amazing interviewer. I think he was pretty obvious about who he was. And I, for one, really appreciate who he was and the good that he accomplished.

If one is to put themselves forward to council others on theological matters it seems odd that they would disavow being a theologian. Kind of like 'I know nothing about it but I'll tell you how to do it'.

Edited February 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

Dehlin never put himself out there as a theologian nor as an amazing interviewer. I think he was pretty obvious about who he was.

In which case, let the consumer beware of informational malpractice. Alas, I don't see such alertness or vigilance on the part of Dehlin disciples, by and large.

[smac97]

But the article does not even give a balanced view of what Dehlin does with Mormon Stories. Not one whit. That seems personal to me. Smith wanted to, and succeeded in, portraying someone who should totally be considered an enemy to Mormonism. 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. Look I think Smith pointed out some very valid things and for someone who views the Church as he does I think some of this was very proper. But he gave no balance at all. He met his goal. To make Dehlln out to be a very bad person as far as what he does and says about the Church.. Stay away from him . That seem pretty personal to me.

So a writing which questions the motives underlying another person's actions makes that writing ... "personal," right?

Here's an example of such behavior: "Smith wanted to, and succeeded in, portraying someone who should totally be considered an enemy to Mormonism."

And another: "But he gave no balance at all. He met his goal. To make Dehlln out to be a very bad person as far as what he does and says about the Church."

Physician, heal thyself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Maybe it was inevitible to have someone like John Dehlin come along. It was bubbling up for years the disallusioned folk out there. Maybe they were the inactives we thought just wanted to sin. But lo and behold they were not. Someone like John came along and maybe made it possible for people to not feel they had to go inactive anymore but would one day be accepted back in even though they struggle with doubt. Maybe the church leaders still want those people in the church. Isn't that what goes on in some ward council meetings, the topic of reactivation and our ward missionary leaders motivating members to seek them out and help bring them back in? Maybe this is why John has the back-up from the LDS leaders at the top and hasn't been ex'ed. I think some of the apologetics might have their hands full if they think someone should leave if they aren't fully immersed in belief like John. Maybe his movement helped bring some back to the fold, and helped some out also but they might change and come back to a more welcoming church atmosphere.

[Calm]

Maybe this is why John has the back-up from the LDS leaders at the top...

Assuming something that hasn't been proved.

[awyatt]

Maybe this is why John has the back-up from the LDS leaders at the top and hasn't been ex'ed.

Just because JD hasn't been ex'ed doesn't mean that he has "the back-up from the LDS leaders at the top." According to JD's own account he is not able to baptize his son, which means he isn't (by definition) in good standing with the Church. Major kudos go to his stake president for persistently and charitably working with JD over the course of the past year.

-Allen

[rockpond]

In which case, let the consumer beware of informational malpractice. Alas, I don't see such alertness or vigilance on the part of Dehlin disciples, by and large.

If you are aware of instances of informational malpractice, then start a thread and cite them.

I look at it as a podcast of people telling their stories. You may not like their stories but that doesn't mean that John has misled people.

[rockpond]

If one is to put themselves forward to council others on theological matters it seems odd that they would disavow being a theologian. Kind of like 'I know nothing about it but I'll tell you how to do it'.

The purpose of the podcasts isn't to counsel people on theological matters.

And if you are referring to John's stated career objectives... He is pursuing a doctorate in psychology -- in my book that will qualify him to counsel people.