It Is Not Personal

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I'm not well-versed in social media interaction. Are postings to Facebook considered private communication?

[blackstrap]

.

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."

That ,of course , is not in any way a 'personal' attack. He is simply discussing ideas.

[teddyaware]

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.

How in the world can someone perform an analysis a heterodoxical LDS point of view without the analysis seeming to be at least somewhat harsh? A dissident point of view must be challenged on it's own confrontational field of battle; you can't pretend it's something it's not. Even if a totally dispassionate futuristic robot could write the critique, it would still be seen by many who sympathize with the irregular point of view as being unfair and hypercritical. Points of view that radically deviate from the mainstream in any philosphical or theological system will invariably be cited by those defending ortodoxy as being heretical and potentially destructive to the established order. It always has and always will come with the territory. There should be no shock or surprise...

[Bill Hamblin]

I suppose it was utterly predictable, but I am still amazed that not a single critic of Greg's article has actually engaged a single issue that Greg raises--and they are numerous and substantive. This silence tacitly concedes all of Greg's essential points.

It also indicates how successful Dehlin and his allies were in poisoning the well in their year-long smear campaign against Dan and Greg, and apologists in general. Nobody wants to address the issues. Everyone wants to talk about whether Greg is fair or nice or balanced--which, practically speaking, are completely subjective and, in any event, utterly irrelevant.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not well-versed in social media interaction. Are postings to Facebook considered private communication?

Of course not.

[William Schryver]

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.

That would not be consistent with what I understand to be the common understanding of the phrase to which you refer. Even so, Smith's examination of the Mormon Stories movement does not constitute "evil speaking" of "the Lord's anointed."

... I'd suggest that we all stop pretending that this is a fair, balanced, or even ethical, approach to apologetics.

I'd suggest you stop pretending that your objections to Smith's examination of the Mormon Stories movement are fair and balanced. See how easy it is to say meaningless things like that?

[sethpayne]

---

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

What? Then why are there 3 threads on Greg's essay where John Dehlin's temple worthiness is being discussed ad nauseum. Heck, Pahoran even accused Dehlin of lying to his priesthood leaders.

I'm not trying to be snarky but this seems like an unfair double standard.

If this is to be a rule it should read:

Commenting on the temple worthiness of others is inappropriate -- unless the person in question is John Dehlin.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Robert F. Smith has already done that here. You should know; you were responding to his post. He talked of Dehlin's impertinence during the interview with Brant Gardner. And I liked Robert Smith's wording in characterizing the Dehlin-Coe interview: "He and Mike Coe wallowing, as it were, in the mire of their mutual ignorance."

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.

But working professionally in information media, I can tell you that it is a mark of professionalism to have some advance preparation before one interviews a subject, to try to prevent one's own ignorance from getting in the way of knowledge being conveyed, and to try not to let inaccuracy or falsehood pass by unchallenged.

Dehlin is free to run his shop as he sees fit. I'm only saying caveat emptor.

[Bill Hamblin]

What? Then why are there 3 threads on Greg's essay where John Dehlin's temple worthiness is being discussed ad nauseum. Heck, Pahoran even accused Dehlin of lying to his priesthood leaders.

I'm not trying to be snarky but this seems like an unfair double standard.

If this is to be a rule it should read:

Commenting on the temple worthiness of others is inappropriate -- unless the person in question is John Dehlin.

1- John Dehlin himself publicly commented on his temple worthiness status. But even that, in itself, was not sufficient cause to discuss it in Greg's paper. Rather,

2- John Dehlin publicly advised people on how to dissimulate in answering temple recommend questions. That makes the issues very relevant.

Hopefully you grasp the distinction now that it has been explained to you several times.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

But your opinions don't give either of you the ethical right to try to prevent others from reading a non-libelous article that others might find useful.

It's an ethic we have in the United States that extends back to the passage of the First Amendment and before.

[rockpond]

But your opinions don't give either of you the ethical right to try to prevent others from reading a non-libelous article that others might find useful.

It's an ethic we have in the United States that extends back to the passage of the First Amendment and before.

Actually, anyone can make a phone call and say... "hey, I don't think this is in the best interest of our church". The church leaders are free to do what they want with that phone call. Greg Smith is free to do what he wants. And it appears he has published the article.

And I think all of this is a distraction from the the more important cause of helping people... something that I firmly believe apologists and Dehlin alike are trying to do (albeit in different ways for different audiences).

[rockpond]

Robert F. Smith has already done that here. You should know; you were responding to his post. He talked of Dehlin's impertinence during the interview with Brant Gardner. And I liked Robert Smith's wording in characterizing the Dehlin-Coe interview: "He and Mike Coe wallowing, as it were, in the mire of their mutual ignorance."

But working professionally in information media, I can tell you that it is a mark of professionalism to have some advance preparation before one interviews a subject, to try to prevent one's own ignorance from getting in the way of knowledge being conveyed, and to try not to let inaccuracy or falsehood pass by unchallenged.

Dehlin is free to run his shop as he sees fit. I'm only saying caveat emptor.

Agreed - I don't think that Dehlin has an interest in being considered a professional in information media. And I recognize that you, as a professional, would be thoroughly unimpressed with Dehlin's work.

All that said, I agree with the caveat emptor.

[Calm]

I'm not well-versed in social media interaction. Are postings to Facebook considered private communication?

I just joined up, but considering what is currently being 'shared' with me, I've got to say that it is some of the least private communication I've seen.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, anyone can make a phone call and say... "hey, I don't think this is in the best interest of our church".

His object was to halt publication of the article. You and I and any but the most naive understand that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed - I don't think that Dehlin has an interest in being considered a professional in information media. And I recognize that you, as a professional, would be thoroughly unimpressed with Dehlin's work.

Not all of it. Mainly with the notion that one doesn't have a duty to do some advance legwork when preparing an article/broadcast/podcast for public consumption.

All that said, I agree with the caveat emptor.

Thank you.

By the way, Merry Christmas. I mistakenly gave you a rep point on a post a couple of pages ago. I thought I was reading a post from Robert Smith.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

What? Then why are there 3 threads on Greg's essay where John Dehlin's temple worthiness is being discussed ad nauseum. Heck, Pahoran even accused Dehlin of lying to his priesthood leaders.

I'm not trying to be snarky but this seems like an unfair double standard.

If this is to be a rule it should read:

Commenting on the temple worthiness of others is inappropriate -- unless the person in question is John Dehlin.

Perhaps the difference to the mods is whether any of those Grimace was chiding had used their templeworthiness as support for a position they held or to add to their credibility or something else....

[awyatt]

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.

Point taken.

When someone's personal journey is lived publicly in real time, does the person experiencing and broadcasting the journey bear any responsibility for the effect that journey may have on those watching? Particularly if the person invites others to come along on that journey?

Personally, as a side note, such broadcast journeys--going "where ever it takes him"--make me wonder if James 1:6-8 has any applicability for those watching:

"...he that wavereth [going "where ever"] is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

That's the KJV, of course, and may sound harsh. The NRSV might be more easily understood:

"...the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord."

-Allen

[sethpayne]

1- John Dehlin himself publicly commented on his temple worthiness status. But even that, in itself, was not sufficient cause to discuss it in Greg's paper. Rather,

2- John Dehlin publicly advised people on how to dissimulate in answering temple recommend questions. That makes the issues very relevant.

Hopefully you grasp the distinction now that it has been explained to you several times.

#2 is your assumption -- as has been explained to you several times by numerous people. Also something you have failed to address while complaining that no one is engaging substantive issues. Obviously if local leaders granted Dehlin a TR they don't share your assessment. And I'm still waiting for an explanation on how Dehlin was lying. How on earth can you lie about something you have published online for the world to see! That would be like me telling my Bishop that I don't enjoy Cohiba Cigars and Balvenie Scotch. I can't very well blog about something and then expect to tell something different to anyone, let alone my local leaders.

You must think very poorly of Dehlin's leaders as you have set yourself up as the arbiter of Dehlin's worthiness. Assessing someone's worthiness seems pretty damn personal to me.

Edited February 26, 2013 by sethpayne

[Senator]

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

From the review:

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:

Sky, can you give me a page number to where these quotes are found? I haven't read the article.

[Calm]

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.

Yes, he stated he felt it was damaging to the Church and all those involved....and then he demanded it be published to prove it wasn't a hit piece as claimed.

If his foremost concern was not only himself, but the Church and others involved as well...that the article was a lose-lose for everyone, why would he be so insistent on it being published later on?

[sethpayne]

Perhaps the difference to the mods is whether any of those Grimace was chiding had used their templeworthiness as support for a position they held or to add to their credibility or something else....

Perhaps so.

In any case, I think discussion of temple worthiness should be completely off limits. That is between members and their local leaders. This becomes especially problematic when the person being discussed has obtained a TR. Such criticism is a slam on that person's local Church leaders. Either we trust local leaders or we don't. I happen to trust local leaders.

[Calm]

And I think all of this is a distraction from the the more important cause of helping people... something that I firmly believe apologists and Dehlin alike are trying to do (albeit in different ways for different audiences).

But it is not only important to try and help people, it is as important imo to ensure that one is actually doing so...and if one sees harm even in good intentioned people, one should step up to stop it. Just because someone thinks they are doing right doesn't excuse them from criticism and correction.

[BlueDreams]

I'm not well-versed in social media interaction. Are postings to Facebook considered private communication?

No, unless what is quoted from something that you can't view without being his friend with certain blocks. There's varying levels of privacy on FB. PM's are similar to emails and that would be pretty personal. You can block most of what is shown on your main page but adding various protections so that only friends can see certain things. You can even make it so that only certain groups of friends can see. It is definitely not "private" if its unblocked or if you have a gagillion "friends." Plus Dehlin, from what I could see has both an account as a public figure and private account. The one acts more like a fan page or a likes page the othere more like what you use to put on things you personally like.

I'm not a friend or follow John's site. From what I can tell there is a ton open to anyone to see and thus pretty open to the public.

Personally, if I don't want something to be known I simply don't mention it on facebook.....if I do I expect it to easily pop up in conversation elsewhere.

With luv,

BD

[Bill Hamblin]

#2 is your assumption -- as has been explained to you several times by numerous people. Also something you have failed to address while complaining that no one is engaging substantive issues. Obviously if local leaders granted Dehlin a TR they don't share your assessment. And I'm still waiting for an explanation on how Dehlin was lying. How on earth can you lie about something you have published online for the world to see! That would be like me telling my Bishop that I don't enjoy Cohiba Cigars and Balvenie Scotch. I can't very well blog about something and then expect to tell something different to anyone, let alone my local leaders.

You must think very poorly of Dehlin's leaders as you have set yourself up as the arbiter of Dehlin's worthiness. Assessing someone's worthiness seems pretty damn personal to me.

#2 is your assumption -- as has been explained to you several times by numerous people. Also something you have failed to address while complaining that no one is engaging substantive issues. Obviously if local leaders granted Dehlin a TR they don't share your assessment. And I'm still waiting for an explanation on how Dehlin was lying. How on earth can you lie about something you have published online for the world to see! That would be like me telling my Bishop that I don't enjoy Cohiba Cigars and Balvenie Scotch. I can't very well blog about something and then expect to tell something different to anyone, let alone my local leaders.

You must think very poorly of Dehlin's leaders as you have set yourself up as the arbiter of Dehlin's worthiness. Assessing someone's worthiness seems pretty damn personal to me.

Read pages 39-42 again. That's the problem.

It is ridiculous to claim that I have set myself up as an arbiter of Dehlin's worthiness. I have never said, nor implied any such thing. It's none of my business.

[Calm]

Sky, can you give me a page number to where these quotes are found? I haven't read the article.

Starts on page 38 of the first article: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf