sethpayne Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Are you saying only his leaders are to judge whether or not he is telling people to dissimulate on their recommends?Yes. This is a judgement call and it is well outside my stewardship to address.I know Bishops who give out TRs to people who smoke or drink coffee because the family disharmony created by someone not attending a wedding etc... would create serious problems.Should we target these Bishops too? Or do we trust that the Spirit is guiding their leadership?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.I think accusing someone of dishonesty in respect to the TR is a comment on that person's temple worthiness. Bill has provided several examples in this thread alone.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Call for references, please.Regards,PahoranFor some reason Seth is getting confused.JD in a podcast (why Seth seems to be missing this info) told members basically how to lie to get a TR on certain moral issues.When reading what you wrote he seems to think that you were talking specifically about JD lieing in a TR interview.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) 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 doing so I 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.The definition of dissimulate is "to conceal or disguise (one's thoughts, feelings, or character)" (from dictionary.com).Using the words from that definition, I will reiterate Bill's questions:Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to conceal or disguise his thoughts, feelings or character on temple recommend questions?Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to publicly advise people on how to conceal or disguise their thoughts, feelings or character on temple recommend questions? Edited February 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 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.Whether he is now pursuing a master's degree, and later a doctorate, my problem with Dehlin is his utter lack of commitment to academic preparation and rigor. Systematically getting your facts wrong is not a promising way to pursue a degree in anything, much less in advising people on matters of religion and faith. False premises = false conclusions in ordinary logic and reasoning. Dehlin's lack of concern for getting it right should be a major worry for his victims. A betrayal of trust, as it were, for those he counsels.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 The definition of dissimulate is "to conceal or disguise (one's thoughts, feelings, or character)" (from dictionary.com).Using the words from that definition, I will reiterate Bill's questions:Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to conceal or disguise his thoughts, feelings or character on temple recommend questions? Correct.Do you agree that it is inappropriate for someone to publicly advise people on how to disguise their thoughts, feelings or character on temple recommend questions?Correct.
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Nope. Because by doing so I would be assuming the stewardship of that person's local leadership.I am rather confused by this position. While I would agree templeworthiness status itself is up to the person's leadership, what is temple worthy behaviour in and of itself seems to me to be up for discussion. We are taught for example that breaking the Law of Chastity is against temple covenants so while we may not choose to point to someone and say I believe he has broken the LoC and so should not get a temple recommend, is it not appropriate to say something along the lines of 'I believe that only those who desire or claim to be templeworthy need to be committed to the LoC?'
Bill Hamblin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) I think accusing someone of dishonesty in respect to the TR is a comment on that person's temple worthiness. Bill has provided several examples in this thread alone.I did not accuse Dehlin of dishonesty in his own recommend interviews. How would I possibly know if he did or didn't?Rather, I said Dehlin publicly advised other people to dissimulate. Go read pages 38-42 again. That is exactly what he does. I consider this highly inappropriate, and because it was done publicly, it is certainly subject to public comment and criticism. Quit misrepresenting me. Quit making it about me. Please address the issues.This is not about me. It is not really even about Dehlin. It is about the appropriateness of publicly advising people to dissimulate on temple recommend questions. Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin 1
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) Yes. This is a judgement call and it is well outside my stewardship to address.I know Bishops who give out TRs to people who smoke or drink coffee because the family disharmony created by someone not attending a wedding etc... would create serious problems.So if you see someone smoking, you believe it is inappropriate to comment on that fact because by commenting you are making a judgment about their templeworthiness?What if you saw that person passing out cigarettes to the young men in your ward? Is it still something personal and not something to be commented on out of concern that this individual might be leading others to smoke? Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah 1
Libs Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 There are two different issues, regarding the "Temple worthiness" issue that are getting crossed over and confused.Greg Smith suggests that John Dehlin was using his "Temple worthy" status, as a means of establishing some kind of credibility with his followers. I think that assumption is blatantly untrue.The other issue is in regards to John's "staylds" site, where he simply gives some alternative ways of thinking about the interview questions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, since the interpretation of many of those questions is left up to the person being interviewed. I know for a fact that many people who have a TR and do, in general, support the Brethren..do not take that to mean that they agree with every word out of their mouth.
Pahoran Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 For some reason Seth is getting confused.JD in a podcast (why Seth seems to be missing this info) told members basically how to lie to get a TR on certain moral issues.When reading what you wrote he seems to think that you were talking specifically about JD lieing in a TR interview.If Seth can't tell the difference between "JD wrote an article advising people on how to lie with a straight face in a TR interview" and "JD lied in a TR interview," then he really needs to take a remedial reading course.Regards,PahoranDo not question other poster's intelligence.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) I know Bishops who give out TRs to people who smoke or drink coffee because the family disharmony created by someone not attending a wedding etc... would create serious problems.This strikes me as bizarre -- and more than a little incredible.I should think a bishop who did such a thing would find himself an object for correction by those in higher authority.But then, I've never been a bishop, so perhaps I am naive.I'm wondering if, in the above referenced instances, the temple recommend was granted upon the person's promise that he/she would permanently give up the tobacco and coffee forthwith -- then, contrary to the promise, the person resumed the forbidden habits later.I could perhaps imagine such a thing happening under those circumstances. Edited February 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Bill Hamblin Posted February 26, 2013 Author Posted February 26, 2013 It note that Seth seems completely incapable of addressing the issues. Instead, he insists on personalizing it. For Seth, I've done something inappropriate. I'm too judgmental I am accusing Dehlin falsely, etc. Even if true, none of this is relevant to the issues at hand. It is pure ad hominem. Why can't some people simply address the issues and ideas?
Pahoran Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 There are two different issues, regarding the "Temple worthiness" issue that are getting crossed over and confused.Greg Smith suggests that John Dehlin was using his "Temple worthy" status, as a means of establishing some kind of credibility with his followers. I think that assumption is blatantly untrue.At one time, Mister Dehlin was waving his TR around in his "advertising." The conclusion that he was therefore using it "as a means of establishing some kind of credibility with his followers" is not only far from "blatantly untrue," it's just about the only conclusion available on the evidence.The other issue is in regards to John's "staylds" site, where he simply gives some alternative ways of thinking about the interview questions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, since the interpretation of many of those questions is left up to the person being interviewed.Absolutely nothing wrong with finding ways to rationalise to oneself that "no" really means "yes?"How very illuminating.Regards,Pahoran 2
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 For some reason Seth is getting confused.JD in a podcast (why Seth seems to be missing this info) told members basically how to lie to get a TR on certain moral issues.When reading what you wrote he seems to think that you were talking specifically about JD lieing in a TR interview.JD stated he wasn't telling people to lie, I believe, but rather if I understood him correctly to change the context in their mind from what is generally understood to be the doctrinal context to a context that they felt more comfortable with....without informing the questioner of the context they were using. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) The other issue is in regards to John's "staylds" site, where he simply gives some alternative ways of thinking about the interview questions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, since the interpretation of many of those questions is left up to the person being interviewed.There is definitely something wrong with that if you know that the person posing the question has something in mind other than the way you choose to interpret it as you respond to it. It is wrong because it is dishonest. Edited February 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 The other issue is in regards to John's "staylds" site, where he simply gives some alternative ways of thinking about the interview questions. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, since the interpretation of many of those questions is left up to the person being interviewed. I understood it that way as well. The question for me is whether or not there is an appropriate limit to interpretation...at what point does it become unreasonable...and whether or not JD encourage people to ignore that limit for their personal benefit rather than showing respect for the faith that the temples stand for. 1
rockpond Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 His object was to halt publication of the article. You and I and any but the most naive understand that.Yes, but halting publication was not within Dehlin's power. He may have asked, encouraged, and persuaded but someone else made the decision to not publish it (at least not publish it for a time). So, it would appear, that the "someone else" (with some degree of authority) agreed with Dehlin's thoughts on the article. Or would you interpret the result in a different way?
Senator Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) I did not accuse Dehlin of dishonesty in his own recommend interviews. Never mind Edited February 26, 2013 by Senator
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 There is definitely something wrong with that if you know that the person posing the question has something in mind other than the way you choose to interpret it as you respond to it. It is wrong because it is dishonest.I too have a problem with someone altering his words not because he believes a certain way, but because he wants to get a certain response out of a person when he knows that he wouldn't get it if he just said it in the way he would usually say something.Perhaps this seems extreme to others, but to me saying things in a specific way in order to get a temple recommend when you know the usual way you speak would cause the bishop to withhold it is like telling a girl you love her to get her to sleep with you and reasoning that is okay because you do feel passionately attracted to her in this moment while being aware that what she is asking you is about a longer term emotional connection, not a temporary physical state. Encouraging someone to change the way they would say things in order to get a more favourable outcome at a temple interview is for me pretty much the same thing as encouraging someone to overstate how much they care for another in order to 'score'. I understand that often the motivation to do so is to avoid giving hurt to loved ones, but I still do not see it as appropriate for another to encourage this level of deception. If a person decides it on their own for whatever reason...well, I am open to at times someone sincerely feeling it a necessity...but someone encouraging such behaviour....I never see that as a necessity, but only a lack of respect and commitment to the temple itself and all it stands for, including God. 2
why me Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 No. I don't get it. Only Dehlin's local leaders are in a position to make this judgement. Get it?But John made his ideas about temple recommends public. So, it is open for discussion. It is really that simple. But you seem to be ignoring John's public statements.
Libs Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I understood it that way as well. The question for me is whether or not there is an appropriate limit to interpretation...at what point does it become unreasonable...and whether or not JD encourage people to ignore that limit for their personal benefit rather than showing respect for the faith that the temples stand for.Which is all speculation, Calmoriah. So is the idea that he used his Temple worthy status as a means to make money or instill confidence. I've known John for along time and I just don't believe any of that is a true representation of who he is.
rockpond Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Whether he is now pursuing a master's degree, and later a doctorate, my problem with Dehlin is his utter lack of commitment to academic preparation and rigor. Systematically getting your facts wrong is not a promising way to pursue a degree in anything, much less in advising people on matters of religion and faith. False premises = false conclusions in ordinary logic and reasoning. Dehlin's lack of concern for getting it right should be a major worry for his victims. A betrayal of trust, as it were, for those he counsels.I'm just not seeing where he was publishing a bunch of "false premises". He interviewed people for a series of podcasts. He let people tell their stories in front of a microphone. The rest of this strikes me as a little schoolyard fight (and I include blame for the fight on both sides).
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Yes, but halting publication was not within Dehlin's power. He may have asked, encouraged, and persuaded but someone else made the decision to not publish it (at least not publish it for a time). So, it would appear, that the "someone else" (with some degree of authority) agreed with Dehlin's thoughts on the article. Or would you interpret the result in a different way?Have you read Lou Midgley's report of the memo from Samuelson to Bradford? I don't think it was so much agreement with Dehlin as just not wanting to have anything to do with it (and Dehlin) at all. Two people can have in mind the same result for very different reasons.
why me Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Yes, but halting publication was not within Dehlin's power. He may have asked, encouraged, and persuaded but someone else made the decision to not publish it (at least not publish it for a time). So, it would appear, that the "someone else" (with some degree of authority) agreed with Dehlin's thoughts on the article. Or would you interpret the result in a different way?John put it all in motion. It was the lighter that lit the fire. Without his dissent about the article, it would have been published.
Calm Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Which is all speculation, Calmoriah.IIRC, Greg quoted Dehlin on an example of what to imagine in one's mind in order to say 'yes' so not all speculation.
Recommended Posts