It Is Not Personal

[rockpond]

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.

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.

That people discuss him on message boards means only that he is a public figure. Dan Peterson is discussed probably as often as Dehlin but I don't take that to mean that Dan is hiding who he really is.

Apologists, like Dehlin, also mean different things to different audiences. And again, that doesn't mean that there is something sinister behind the curtain.

As for Dehlin "castigating" apologists... he reported the results of a survey. If you think his survey was incorrect than present evidence to the contrary.

[rockpond]

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

He's been pretty clear that he felt it was a lose-lose scenario for everyone involved and so he tried to stop it from being published. I happen to agree with him.

[awyatt]

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.

A single example should suffice as evidence to the contrary: In JD's interview with Michael Coe, they talked for a bit about coins in the Book of Mormon. JD posed the question about them and asked Coe to comment. Except that the Book of Mormon never talks about coins.

Could such stories mislead people? Is JD responsible for any who might be misled by his questions concerning the matter?

-Allen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

A single example should suffice as evidence to the contrary: In JD's interview with Michael Coe, they talked for a bit about coins in the Book of Mormon. JD posed the question about them and asked Coe to comment. Except that the Book of Mormon never talks about coins.

Could such stories mislead people? Is JD responsible for any who might be misled by his questions concerning the matter?

-Allen

No more than say Elder Bruce R Mcconkie for putting it in the chapter heading... Is Elder Mcconkie misleading people? Is Elder Mcconkie responsible for any who might be misled by his chapter heading?

But seriously, I wish John had done more research for that interview. I think that John shares that sentiment now. He has indicated that he was at a spiritual low point in his faith journey.

Edited February 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

As for Dehlin "castigating" apologists... he reported the results of a survey.

Are you saying he never criticized apologists outside of the reporting of his survey? Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[awyatt]

That people discuss him on message boards means only that he is a public figure. Dan Peterson is discussed probably as often as Dehlin but I don't take that to mean that Dan is hiding who he really is.

Yes, he is a public figure. That, alone, should speak volumes about the appropriateness of discussing the public behavior of the public figure.

Apologists, like Dehlin, also mean different things to different audiences. And again, that doesn't mean that there is something sinister behind the curtain.

I never said there was anything sinister behind the curtain. Be that as it may, you misunderstand my point: JD presented himself differently to different audiences. It was *his* actions toward those audiences, not the reaction of the audiences toward him (as you try to imply me saying). If JD says to a pro-LDS audience that he wants to keep people in the Church, but says to Steve Benson and the RfM folks that it isn't his desire to keep people in the Church, what are we to make of that?

As for Dehlin "castigating" apologists... he reported the results of a survey. If you think his survey was incorrect than present evidence to the contrary.

I have hundreds (literally, hundreds) of quotes from people extolling the work of apologists, in general, and FAIR, in particular, who have helped them stay in the Church. Such anecdotal evidence from a self-selected population wouldn't carry much weight with those who oppose apologetics, nor should it. Why should JD's anecdotal evidence from a self-selected population be given more credence?

-Allen

[ALarson]

I'd imagine that John Dehlin feels this piece is very personal. I can see both sides of the debate though.

However, taking and publishing quotes from his facebook page, makes it personal IMO

[rockpond]

A single example should suffice as evidence to the contrary: In JD's interview with Michael Coe, they talked for a bit about coins in the Book of Mormon. JD posed the question about them and asked Coe to comment. Except that the Book of Mormon never talks about coins.

Could such stories mislead people? Is JD responsible for any who might be misled by his questions concerning the matter?

-Allen

Yes, the word "coins" is anachronistic but they were obviously referring to Alma 11 wherein the "monetary system" (McConkie's header) is discussed in terms of "pieces of silver/gold" paid as wages. A 21st century reader would obviously apply the word "coin".

[awyatt]

No more than say Elder Bruce R Mcconkie for putting it in the chapter heading... Is Elder Mcconkie misleading people? Is Elder Mcconkie responsible for any who might be misled by his chapter heading?

Yes, I think he would be.

But seriously, I wish John had done more research for that interview. I think that John shares that sentiment now. He has indicated that he was at a spiritual low point in his faith journey.

I'd be very interested in seeing those sentiments voiced by JD. Do you have a reference?

If JD believes that the podcast was somehow sub-standard because of where he was in his life, I wonder why he keeps the podcast on his site?

-Allen

[rockpond]

Are you saying he never criticized apologists outside of the reporting of his survey?

No, I think he did. And apologists criticized him as well.

[Calm]

No, I think he did.

So what are you saying when you make this comment:

As for Dehlin "castigating" apologists... he reported the results of a survey.

His criticisms...harsh criticisms...seem to have gone far beyond reporting of a survey.

[rockpond]

Yes, he is a public figure. That, alone, should speak volumes about the appropriateness of discussing the public behavior of the public figure.

I never said there was anything sinister behind the curtain. Be that as it may, you misunderstand my point: JD presented himself differently to different audiences. It was *his* actions toward those audiences, not the reaction of the audiences toward him (as you try to imply me saying). If JD says to a pro-LDS audience that he wants to keep people in the Church, but says to Steve Benson and the RfM folks that it isn't his desire to keep people in the Church, what are we to make of that?

I have hundreds (literally, hundreds) of quotes from people extolling the work of apologists, in general, and FAIR, in particular, who have helped them stay in the Church. Such anecdotal evidence from a self-selected population wouldn't carry much weight with those who oppose apologetics, nor should it. Why should JD's anecdotal evidence from a self-selected population be given more credence?

-Allen

I've heard Dehlin speak a lot about how we wants to help people get to a place that is the best for them. In or out of the church.

It should not be given more credence. Others are welcome to publish their findings that contradict his.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I never said there was anything sinister behind the curtain. Be that as it may, you misunderstand my point: JD presented himself differently to different audiences. It was *his* actions toward those audiences, not the reaction of the audiences toward him (as you try to imply me saying). If JD says to a pro-LDS audience that he wants to keep people in the Church, but says to Steve Benson and the RfM folks that it isn't his desire to keep people in the Church, what are we to make of that?

I've never heard John say "that he wants to keep people in the Church." Was that in the article? To varying degrees (depending on where John was personally) John leaned more towards faith or more toward leaving the church. This represents what I have taken most away from John:

This essay is intended for LDS Church members who have recetly (or not so recently) encountered a major trial of their faith, and are trying to figure out what options for church engagement are available to them. In my experience -- the 2 most obvious options are either: 1) remaining a traditional, literalist, conservative member (not an option for many in this scenario), or 2) leaving the church altogether, either formally by resigning or informally by "going inactive" (an option which many choose -- some with great success, and some with much regret).

While I am in full support of those who choose either of these options -- I write this essay to let people know that there is also a "middle way" within Mormonism that lies between orthodox, literalistic observance and complete abandonment.

Everything that I have seen from John is that he wants people to find peace on their journey. It's one of the things that drove him to come back to church (seeing a lack of peace in some who were following him and a lack of peace in his own life).

[awyatt]

Yes, the word "coins" is anachronistic but they were obviously referring to Alma 11 wherein the "monetary system" (McConkie's header) is discussed in terms of "pieces of silver/gold" paid as wages. A 21st century reader would obviously apply the word "coin".

But they didn't discuss McConkie's header, which I think would have been appropriate. They discussed how the Book of Mormon talks about coins and how there were no coins among the Maya, therefore the Book of Mormon is wrong.

Is that misleading? You specifically said he didn't mislead anyone. Since John asked the questions, is he responsible for any who were misled?

-Allen

[rockpond]

But they didn't discuss McConkie's header, which I think would have been appropriate. They discussed how the Book of Mormon talks about coins and how there were no coins among the Maya, therefore the Book of Mormon is wrong.

Is that misleading? You specifically said he didn't mislead anyone. Since John asked the questions, is he responsible for any who were misled?

-Allen

That's okay. Leave McConkie's header out of it.

Alma 11 still discusses pieces of gold/silver paid as wages. Most 21st century readers would consider a piece of silver paid as a wage to be a "coin". It's a valid question. And it was JUST a question... Coe then had the opportunity to provide his opinion and research. And the listener had the opportunity to consider the veracity (or lack thereof) of what was said.

Edited February 26, 2013 by rockpond

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No, I think he did. And apologists criticized him as well.

The biggest problem in my mind rockpond (and I don't know if you were following the thread) is that John was asked very nicely several times just recently on this board to provide specific examples of poor apologetics so they could be corrected. He was asked repeatedly and the invitations showed much respect. He was not able to come up with a single instance in any article of poor apologetics. I personally believe that most people who site apologetics in reasons to leave are refering to interactions with defenders of the faith on message boards like this one. I think there are plenty of people who have good intentions on these boards that come across in a less than Christlike fashion. I believe their heart is in the right place, but it just doesn't help someone who is in the deep throws of a faith crisis. I think it is unfair to label people at Fair/Farms because of stuff said on discussion boards. Just my 2 cents.

[awyatt]

I've never heard John say "that he wants to keep people in the Church." Was that in the article? To varying degrees (depending on where John was personally) John leaned more towards faith or more toward leaving the church.

You can chalk it up to paraphrasing, if you prefer, but it is addressed in GS's review. (Start at about page 55, IIRC.) Here, particularly, are JD's own words on the matter:

Regarding my "encouraging members to stay in the church"—this was my position for a time while I was trying to figure out my own relationship with the church (I’ve vacillated over the years about my own level of activity just as many of you here have), but the StayLDS position is no longer something that I push . . . and I've been very public about this on my podcast a few times now.

So in JD's words, "encouraging members to stay in the church" was his "position for a time." But then he changed it. Or at least told the people at RfM that he changed it. There's a huge dichotomy there, particularly when he told the same audience that he "would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of [his] Internet work."

JD may be the nicest guy in the world. But I can't understand how anyone couldn't see that such statements are anything but problematic.

-Allen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes, I think he would be.

You and I have different definitions for the word misleading. I'll just leave it at that.

I'd be very interested in seeing those sentiments voiced by JD. Do you have a reference?

If JD believes that the podcast was somehow sub-standard because of where he was in his life, I wonder why he keeps the podcast on his site?

-Allen

The "I think" part was my speculation - hence why I said "I think". As for him saying he was at the low point in his spiritual journey, that is from his recent podcast here: http://athoughtfulfaith.org/2013/01/27/019-021-reflection-and-reconstruction-the-journey-of-john-dehlin/

As for removing the podcast, I don't know why he would. It is an interview with Michael Coe. It is valuable for what it is - an incite into what non-mormon scholars think of the BOM. Dr. Coe obviously spent his time preparing for and participating in the interview, I see no reason to take it down.

[awyatt]

Alma 11 still discusses pieces of gold/silver paid as wages. Most 21st century readers would consider a piece of silver paid as a wage to be a "coin". It's a valid question. And it was JUST a question... Coe then had the opportunity to provide his opinion and research. And the listener had the opportunity to consider the veracity (or lack thereof) of what was said.

Which I've done. But you seem to have a problem that I find no veracity in JD asking a misleading question.

-Allen

[awyatt]

The biggest problem in my mind rockpond (and I don't know if you were following the thread) is that John was asked very nicely several times just recently on this board to provide specific examples of poor apologetics so they could be corrected. He was asked repeatedly and the invitations showed much respect. He was not able to come up with a single instance in any article of poor apologetics. I personally believe that most people who site apologetics in reasons to leave are refering to interactions with defenders of the faith on message boards like this one. I think there are plenty of people who have good intentions on these boards that come across in a less than Christlike fashion. I believe their heart is in the right place, but it just doesn't help someone who is in the deep throws of a faith crisis. I think it is unfair to label people at Fair/Farms because of stuff said on discussion boards. Just my 2 cents.

Very well said, and I agree 100%.

-Allen

[rockpond]

JD may be the nicest guy in the world. But I can't understand how anyone couldn't see that such statements are anything but problematic.

They aren't problematic for me because Dehlin is just a guy doing a podcast. He happens to be someone I can relate to. And someone who has provide a ton of useful information for me on my journey.

It might be problematic for me if I considered him some type of prophet. But I don't and I am not aware of anyone who does.

[rockpond]

Which I've done. But you seem to have a problem that I find no veracity in JD asking a misleading question.

-Allen

That's fine, you can find no veracity in it. I'm just arguing that the use of the contemporary term "coin" to describe a piece of gold that was paid to someone as a wage seems appropriate to me and not misleading. Certainly not intentionally misleading as if Dehlin was thinking: "I'm gonna say coin so that I can instill doubt in people."

[Tacenda]

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

You and Cal are right. I guess I was tying it into the supposed "hit piece" getting the ax in the beginning from getting published by some or one GA. Shouldn't do that, but glad he hasn't been ex'd yet.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You can chalk it up to paraphrasing, if you prefer, but it is addressed in GS's review. (Start at about page 55, IIRC.) Here, particularly, are JD's own words on the matter:

So in JD's words, "encouraging members to stay in the church" was his "position for a time." But then he changed it. Or at least told the people at RfM that he changed it. There's a huge dichotomy there, particularly when he told the same audience that he "would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of [his] Internet work."

JD may be the nicest guy in the world. But I can't understand how anyone couldn't see that such statements are anything but problematic.

-Allen

You said:

I never said there was anything sinister behind the curtain. Be that as it may, you misunderstand my point: JD presented himself differently to different audiences. It was *his* actions toward those audiences, not the reaction of the audiences toward him (as you try to imply me saying). If JD says to a pro-LDS audience that he wants to keep people in the Church, but says to Steve Benson and the RfM folks that it isn't his desire to keep people in the Church, what are we to make of that?

The article correctly states that he advocated a "Staylds" position for a time. It would be more accurate to put it in John's words at the time (which I quoted above). John basically says at the time leaving might not make you happier, maybe you should stay. If John was writing this article for "pro-LDS audiences" he misses the mark, because its in this same article that John is "encouraging people to lie" (paraphrasing Greg Smith) on their temple recommend. This staylds essay has been around for a long time.

John later distanced himself from the staylds movement. Not just on exmormon forums, but for as long as I can remember the staylds site has the following disclaimer:

*As an important point of clarification, John Dehlin is no longer involved in maintaining and promoting this article. He still believes in the possibility of living a middle-way within Mormonism, but he no longer promotes it as the single best answer to a crisis of faith. It is one of many possible resolutions. We agree. John has handed the project over to Brian Johnston, and the people who run StayLDS.com, and allowed us to use his previous material to continue developing the concept and promote it.

John has gone through many changes. It is easy to pick and chose quotes to make him look like he is contradicting himself and speaking out both sides of his mouth when in actuality he is just following his journey where ever it takes him.

Edited February 26, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Daniel Peterson]

That's fine, you can find no veracity in it. I'm just arguing that the use of the contemporary term "coin" to describe a piece of gold that was paid to someone as a wage seems appropriate to me and not misleading. Certainly not intentionally misleading as if Dehlin was thinking: "I'm gonna say coin so that I can instill doubt in people."

It illustrates a lack of any real engagement with serious, faithful scholarship on the Book of Mormon -- that is to say, with the "apologetics" that he has so very vocally and repeatedly condemned.

But then, don't trust what I have to say: In his ongoing campaign for inclusion and charity, John Dehlin has publicly identified me as both a "thug" and a "pathological liar."