It Is Not Personal

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I had pretty much surmised this was the case.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

I agree. Which is one reason why I find it so bizarre that Dehlin feels compelled to talk publicly about it. (Dehlin is a poster child for the 21st century cult of narcissism.)

It only became an issue when he began publicly advising people how to dissimulate on temple recommend interviews. Get it?

[Chaos]

Public figures are not treated as private individuals. This can become uncomfortable because people are more likely to know one another in the Mormon community. We cannot make public events or people off limits for discussion. Several on this board have to live with that and do.

So no more derailments arguing about this please.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree. Which is one reason why I find it so bizarre that Dehlin feels compelled to talk publicly about it. (Dehlin is a poster child for the 21st century cult of narcissism.)

It only became an issue when he began publicly advising people how to dissimulate on temple recommend interviews. Get it?

Huh?

Stop judging the man. You keep going on and on about his worthiness.

[sarcasim off]

Edited February 26, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[why me]

I didn't see the article as personal at all. In academia it is perfectly okay to go through someone's works and give it a good critique. This is not personal but rather it is about what the person has written and done. And it is perfectly okay to do this. In fact, many academics have done this to another. One can find critical books about John Rawls, the social philosopher. Or about karl Marx, Max Weber, Derrida etc. In fact, Karl Marx did this quite well with the philosophers of his time. Was it personal? No.

We need to open our minds to critique and to the questioning process and when one is a public figure, advocating a belief and writing about that belief and doing podcasts, organizing seminars, and chapters, it is perfectly acceptable for people who are impacted by such writings, podcasts and chapters to give a critique in written form.

[why me]

Public figures are not treated as private individuals. This can become uncomfortable because people are more likely to know one another in the Mormon community. We cannot make public events or people off limits for discussion. Several on this board have to live with that and do.

So no more derailments arguing about this please.

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, people outside academia do not realize this: People who write ideas and stand up publically for a belief system will leave themselves open for a critique. John should look upon all this as a positive. People have deemed him so important that a critique of his works was necessary.

Edited February 26, 2013 by why me

[sethpayne]

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.

Except you published a paper where TR worthiness was part of the discussion. But we do agree on one thing. John Dehlin's personal temple worthiness is none of your business.

A public figure writing about temple recommend worthiness becomes public business. As long as everyone sticks to what was written by the public figure, it is permissible. So please everyone move on.

[Bill Hamblin]

Huh?

Stop judging the man. You keep going on and on about his worthiness.

What in the world are you talking about?! I'm not talking about his worthiness. I'm talking about him advising people to dissimulate on recommend interviews.

I have two objections to Dehlin in relationship to temple recommends.

1- I believe it is inappropriate when a person publicly says something like "I have a temple recommend, buy my used cars" or "I have a temple recommend, invest in my company." Indeed, when a person says something like that, I immediate start to distrust them.

2- I believe it is inappropriate for a person to dissimulate on his temple recommend interview, and, even more, to publicly advise others to dissimulate on their temple recommend interviews.

As to whether he is temple worthy or not, I can't judge. It is irrelevant.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Except you published a paper where TR worthiness was part of the discussion. But we do agree on one thing. John Dehlin's personal temple worthiness is none of your business.

Agreed. So why is HE talking about it all the time?

Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to dissimulate on temple recommend questions?

Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to publicly advise people on how to dissimulate on temple recommend questions?

If so, is it appropriate for people to publicly criticize someone who publicly advises people to dissimulate on temple recommend questions?

If so, then the temple recommend issues becomes relevant because Dehlin publicly advises people to dissimulate on temple recommend questions.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[why me]

Except you published a paper where TR worthiness was part of the discussion. But we do agree on one thing. John Dehlin's personal temple worthiness is none of your business.

If John discussed temple recommends and seemed to make contradictions about it, it would be open for discussion only because he made it public. In academia, people who write or make speeches and seem to have an impact in the world of ideas, will be open for critique by people who do not agree with such ideas.

Edited February 26, 2013 by why me

[Bill Hamblin]

If John discussed temple recommends and seemed to make contradictions about it, it would be open for discussion only because he made it public.

Yup.

[sethpayne]

It only became an issue when he began publicly advising people how to dissimulate on temple recommend interviews. Get it?

No. I don't get it. Only Dehlin's local leaders are in a position to make this judgement.

Get it?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I heard Dehlin repeatedly pretend to know facts about the Book of Mormon, which were completely false. The article by Greg Smith shows that this is not at all unusual for Dehlin, including his lack of knowledge of even ordinary, basic doctrinal matters in Mormonism. I'm not asking for an "amazing" inerviewer. Just competent would do.

You speak of him in the past tense, talking about "who he was." Well, who was he in your view? And is he someone else now?

You say you appreciate the good he has accomplished, but just what would that "good" be?

[Scott Lloyd]

What in the world are you talking about?! I'm not talking about his worthiness. I'm talking about him advising people to dissimulate on recommend interviews.

I have two objections to Dehlin in relationship to temple recommends.

1- I believe it is inappropriate for a person publicly says something like "I have a temple recommend, buy my used cars" or "I have a temple recommend, invest in my company."

2- I believe it is inappropriate for a person to dissimulate on his temple recommend interview, and, even more, to publicly advise others to dissimulate on their temple recommend interviews.

As to whether he is temple worthy or not, I can't judge. It is irrelevant.

Not sure, but I think Mola may have been responding with tongue in cheek.

[Bill Hamblin]

Not sure, but I think Mola may have been responding with tongue in cheek.

D'oh!

Where is the smiley face when I need it!

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

No. I don't get it. Only Dehlin's local leaders are in a position to make this judgement.

Get it?

Answer my questions on #134 please.

[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).

Perhaps this is off topic, but I am not that familiar with his website and am thinking that you (or someone else here who has followed him for some time) may know. I have seen the testimonials on his site for those who have been helped by his work and want to express appreciation. Does he ever post comments from those who believe his work has damaged their lives? I assume that from time to time someone post such criticism about his work and considering the reports of those both proLDS and critical that have stated he has deleted their posts, I am wondering if he allows these kinds of comments to stand as balance to those that are supportive of his work.

I think it is important if we take on the role of helping others that we are open to criticism. I would be more comfortable with Bro. Dehlin's attempts to help if I knew he was paying as much attention to those who felt he had hurt him as those who believed he has helped him and giving them the same level of recognition as those supportive of his work (I am talking about the thoughtful remarks, not the rants). I know there are quite a few out there due to their comments I've seen elsewhere about how they feel Dehlin has destroyed their family or caused a relative or friend to lose faith (I am not saying they are right to hold him responsible) and I would find it hard to believe most would be reluctant to write him about what they believe is his role.

I know at least one group of apologists who pay very close attention to criticism as well as praise in hopes of improving our ability to help. If I saw obvious efforts to modify what is seen as harmful by others in his responses to others, again I would be more comfortable with the role he has taken upon himself. At this point I haven't seen much change in him over the years in certain areas that I use to judge receptiveness to criticism (that I don't need to go into) so that is why I feel Greg's paper serves a useful purpose. I might be persuaded otherwise if I could be pointed to efforts to lessen damaging effects of his work.

[Robert F. Smith]

Huh?

Stop judging the man. You keep going on and on about his worthiness.

dissimulate means "lie" during the TR interview by bishop and stake pres. Bill is saying that for Dehlin to advise people to lie during such an interview is completely unacceptable. Or, are you saying that it's OK to lie during a TR interview?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

I can't really say what responsibility John should bear. I'm sure that he shares some, just like we all share some responsibility for our deeds and actions. Ultimately I think we each bear the brunt of the responsibility for our own salvation.

Also, your quote from James seems to describe John's journey pretty well in my opinion (at least the driven with the wind and tossed part).

[sethpayne]

Agreed. So why is HE talking about it all the time?

Because the nature of Mormon Stories is very personal and is a place where people (interviewer, interviewee) often share experiences that help inform the discussion.

Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to dissimulate on temple recommend questions?

That is for Bishops and SPs to decide. Not me. If local leaders feel John's writings on the matter are out of bounds, it is their job to address it, not mine.

Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to publicly advise people on how to dissimulate on temple recommend questions?

That is for Bishops and SPs to decide. Not me. If local leaders feel John's writings on the matter are out of bounds, it is their job to address it, not mine.

If so, is it appropriate for people to publicly criticize someone who publicly advises people to dissimulate on temple recommend questions?

Nope. Because by doing so I would be assuming the stewardship of that person's local leadership.

If so, then the temple recommend issues becomes relevant because Dehlin publicly advises people to dissimulate on temple recommend questions.

Well, since I don't support any of those statements I have to reject this conclusion.

Edited February 26, 2013 by sethpayne

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What in the world are you talking about?! I'm not talking about his worthiness. I'm talking about him advising people to dissimulate on recommend interviews.

I have two objections to Dehlin in relationship to temple recommends.

1- I believe it is inappropriate when a person publicly says something like "I have a temple recommend, buy my used cars" or "I have a temple recommend, invest in my company." Indeed, when a person says something like that, I immediate start to distrust them.

2- I believe it is inappropriate for a person to dissimulate on his temple recommend interview, and, even more, to publicly advise others to dissimulate on their temple recommend interviews.

As to whether he is temple worthy or not, I can't judge. It is irrelevant.

Sometimes sarcasim is so hard to read. I totally get what you are writting. I am just stumped that some people don't.

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my posting.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

No. I don't get it. Only Dehlin's local leaders are in a position to make this judgement.

Are you saying only his leaders are to judge whether or not he is telling people to dissimulate on their recommends?

Or only to make a judgment about his templeworthiness? If this second, perhaps you could quote where Bill has made that judgment (that he is or is not templeworthy)outside of quoting what Bro. Dehlin states himself about his templeworthiness.

[Pahoran]

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.

Call for references, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

Because the nature of Mormon Stories is very personal and is a place where people (interviewer, interviewee) often share experiences that help inform the discussion.

That is for Bishops and SPs to decide. Not me. If local leaders feel John's writings on the matter are out of bounds, it is their job to address it, not mine.

That is for Bishops and SPs to decide. Not me. If local leaders feel John's writings on the matter are out of bounds, it is their job to address it, not mine.

Nope. Because by doingI would be assuming the stewardship of that person's local leadership.

Well, since I don't support any of those statements I have to reject this conclusion.

Once again, you're obfuscating.

I'm not asking who should make the judgment about Dehlin specifically. I'm asking, in principle, about these questions.

And remember, Dehlin publicly raised the issues. Not me, and not Greg. If Dehlin wanted to discuss this in private with his bishop no one would be discussing it now. When Dehlin goes public with these issues, he subjects himself to public criticism, and public scrutiny, just like any me, or anyone else.

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course John Dehlin's temple worthiness is a matter between him, God, and his ecclesiastical leaders, and not an issue for message board posters or article-writers to decide.

But, surely, public comment upon public advice that seems to suggest dissimulating during an interview with a bishop or stake president isn't inappropriate.