It Is Not Personal

[why me]

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).

He has also been present in conferences where mormonism was discussed. Not just at MS conferences but also at independent lds conferences. He is more than just a podcast.

[rockpond]

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.

I can't speak to the experiences of others. As for me, I found the podcasts after my faith crisis had hit and being able to listen to them was part of what helped me through it.

[Libs]

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.

That is simply your interpretation of what John was doing. I did not see it that way, at all. Just the opposite. John was trying to be honest and still participate in the church he obviously loves (even with all of the questions that were starting to bear down on him, at that time). As he progressed further on his journey, he did realize that he had gone too far out the door to make this approach reasonable, anymore. John is as honest as any man I have ever known...so, these accusations are...disturbing, to say the least.

[why me]

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.

As in the edward kimball interview where john attempted to lead Kimball's son down a path that he did not want to go. I think that Edward Kimball saw it coming and gave good comebacks. John did not get the answers that he was hoping for.

[Pahoran]

That is simply your interpretation of what John was doing. I did not see it that way, at all. Just the opposite. John was trying to be honest and still participate in the church he obviously loves (even with all of the questions that were starting to bear down on him, at that time). As he progressed further on his journey, he did realize that he had gone too far out the door to make this approach reasonable, anymore. John is as honest as any man I have ever known...so, these accusations are...disturbing, to say the least.

But Libs, these "accusations" you find so "disturbing" are nothing more or less than a straightforward English reading of the advice Mister Dehlin himself chose to publish.

Is it really so "disturbing" to read something on the understanding that words mean something?

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

I can't speak to the experiences of others. As for me, I found the podcasts after my faith crisis had hit and being able to listen to them was part of what helped me through it.

This is true for many. But John's other podcasts may have led people out of the church. We need to remember that John seemed to act out his belief, lack of belief and unbelief in his podcasts in how he posed questions to the people being interviewed. When John started out, I do believe he helped people stay in the church. But...we do need to see the whole picture in how his podcasts, conferences and chapters either helped or hindered people.

[Calm]

I can't speak to the experiences of others. As for me, I found the podcasts after my faith crisis had hit and being able to listen to them was part of what helped me through it.

I am not asking about the experiences of others, only if he ever posts or allows to stand comments about negative experiences with his work similar to the testimonials he has posted? Can you find such things on his websites? Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

This strikes me as bizarre -- and more than a little incredible.

I should think a bishop who did such a thing would find himself a 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.

Hi Scott,

I'm not sure of the details. Perhaps such promises were made. I don't know. I have been told by 2 Bishops that they have "bent the rules" on TR in extraordinary circumstances. One individual has told me that his Bishop granted him a TR even though he couldn't answer all of the questions in what would be considered the "proper" way.

Obviously I've never been a Bishop so I'm only relaying what I've been told by others so I'm not going to swear that these stories are true. But I don't have a reason to doubt what these Bishops told me.

Seth

[why me]

That is simply your interpretation of what John was doing. I did not see it that way, at all. Just the opposite. John was trying to be honest and still participate in the church he obviously loves (even with all of the questions that were starting to bear down on him, at that time). As he progressed further on his journey, he did realize that he had gone too far out the door to make this approach reasonable, anymore. John is as honest as any man I have ever known...so, these accusations are...disturbing, to say the least.

I think that john himself has admitted that he led some people down the wrong path which is why he distanced himself away from MS conferences and chapters. Greg's paper was written before John returned to church. And we need to remember that fact.

[Calm]

That is simply your interpretation of what John was doing.

That part of the paper is not about what he did, but what he was encouraging others to do.

[sethpayne]

Once again, you're obfuscating.

You have this odd habit of accusing me of obfuscating when you either don't like or don't understand my answers.

[rockpond]

I am not asking about the experiences of others, only if he ever posts or allows to stand comments about negative experiences with his work similar to the testimonials he has posted? Can you find such things on his websites?

Sorry that I missed that part of your question. I don't have the experience with the comments section of his website to answer that question.

[Calm]

Sorry that I missed that part of your question. I don't have the experience with the comments section of his website to answer that question.

Well, if anyone else has, I would love them to speak up.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

I'm not sure of the details. Perhaps such promises were made. I don't know. I have been told by 2 Bishops that they have "bent the rules" on TR in extraordinary circumstances. One individual has told me that his Bishop granted him a TR even though he couldn't answer all of the questions in what would be considered the "proper" way.

Obviously I've never been a Bishop so I'm only relaying what I've been told by others so I'm not going to swear that these stories are true. But I don't have a reason to doubt what these Bishops told me.

Seth

Even "bending the rules" (if that's the phrasing they used) makes me very uncomfortable on a matter as important as determining worthiness to enter the House of the Lord.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

OK I can agree with. But from a moral stand point what is the difference?

[Scott Lloyd]

OK I can agree with. But from a moral stand point what is the difference?

Not much, if any.

And considering that the priesthood leader represents the Lord in determining worthiness and granting admission to the temple, it strikes me as very grave indeed to perpetrate any form of deception in the process.

[ERayR]

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.

Sounds like lying to me.

[blackstrap]

There are 3 signatures on a TR. If you don't have the personal integrity to answer the questions without guile , then you are not worthy of a recommend.

[Libs]

I think that john himself has admitted that he led some people down the wrong path which is why he distanced himself away from MS conferences and chapters. Greg's paper was written before John returned to church. And we need to remember that fact.

No, he said that he was uncomfortable with some of the "peripheral" behaviors at some of the conferences. He never said that he tried to lead people down those paths. Not at all.

[Libs]

That part of the paper is not about what he did, but what he was encouraging others to do.

Cal, I don't think John ever "encouraged" anyone to do anything. He made suggestions for those who were already struggling. Suggestions on how to stay active in the church (which is not a bad thing, IMO). He wasn't even suggesting that one use HIS particular ways of looking at things...only that there are MANY ways to see these questions and still answer them honestly.

[ERayR]

Hi Scott,

I'm not sure of the details. Perhaps such promises were made. I don't know. I have been told by 2 Bishops that they have "bent the rules" on TR in extraordinary circumstances. One individual has told me that his Bishop granted him a TR even though he couldn't answer all of the questions in what would be considered the "proper" way.

Obviously I've never been a Bishop so I'm only relaying what I've been told by others so I'm not going to swear that these stories are true. But I don't have a reason to doubt what these Bishops told me.

Seth

It seems inconceivable to me that a bishop would do that and even more inconceivable that a stake president would knowingly let it get past him.

[Calm]

OK I can agree with. But from a moral stand point what is the difference?

I have when I've been concerned that my understanding of something might be different than what I understood to be the standard interpretation have asked for clarification on whether or not my understanding was in line enough to meet the recommend qualifications. I suppose that I could have just assumed that it was alright, but in my view it is not for me to establish the standard of acceptance even if I felt my behaviour was appropriate due to health restrictions and so I asked.

To me, if you are worried about whether or not something is acceptable, then you either need to pray about it and place it before the Lord or place it before the man who is his servant for this purpose. Most of the time I will do the first, in a few cases I have done the second.

If you go to someone else for advice on what to say...then I think there are problems.

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

For an unsolicited look at how John's advice plays out in real life you can check out the following threads at staylds:

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3361&hilit=TR+Question+Survey -Jesus Christ

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3366&hilit=TR+Question+Survey -Atonement

From some I see a real and sincere faith and if I were their bishop, I would have no problems. For others (including the way John describes his belief with the Larsen's) I think there could be some real issues. Luckily not my call. I certainly don't support deception and think that the motive is to keep the peace or not ruffle feathers are not good reasons to go to the temple. For a lot of posters on that thread I really feel that they have faith and while they may believe a little different, as long as they are sincere, I have no issues. YMMV.

[Louis Midgley]

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

And John Dehlin constantly demonizes those (keep in mind his constant unwarranted attacks on the work of the work of the volunteers who constitute FAIR, and the remarkable scholarship made available for over two decades by FARMS/Maxwell Institute, and hence all of those who have been engaged in providing much needed accurate information for those troubled by doubts, misunderstanding and so forth. And doing all this while in the middle of his own faith crisis.

[rockpond]

And John Dehlin constantly demonizes those (keep in mind his constant unwarranted attacks on the work of the work of the volunteers who constitute FAIR, and the remarkable scholarship made available for over two decades by FARMS/Maxwell Institute, and hence all of those who have been engaged in providing much needed accurate information for those troubled by doubts, misunderstanding and so forth. And doing all this while in the middle of his own faith crisis.

I'd just like to insert a viewpoint: as someone who has been listening to his podcasts for the past couple years (though admittedly not all of them), I do not recall Dehlin demonizing anyone at FARMS/MI. I'm not claiming that he hasn't just that the average MS listener who does not log into the "right" message boards or attend the "right" conferences may not have heard the demonizing and castigating of FARMS/MI folks that I keep hearing about here.