It Is Not Personal

[rockpond]

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.

Okay. So Dehlin dissented. Again, it wasn't Dehlin who stopped publication - I think we all agree he didn't have that authority or power.

So for those who seem upset about the GS article not being published, why not look to the person who had the authority and made the decision to stop the publication. When it comes to the article not getting published, Dehlin is just a scapegoat because he made the call that brought the issue to light.

[Louis Midgley]

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.

But he certainly has attacked and ridiculed FAIR. And hence done his best to keep those who have been his followers to avoid others who volunteer to provide accurate information and solid guidance. And he has indicated that he thinks that Mormon Think is a far better source of information than Fair.

[Louis Midgley]

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.

Of course he has not larded his podcasts with such stuff. But he has, even or especially after after he announced that he would again start attending LDS meetings, gone after Dan Peterson is less than kindly ways. Even on this message board he recently informed the volunteers at FAIR that they could only clean up their bad image by giving Dan Peterson the boot.

[rockpond]

Of course he has not larded his podcasts with such stuff. But he has, even or especially after after he announced that he would again start attending LDS meetings, gone after Dan Peterson is less than kindly ways. Even on this message board he recently informed the volunteers at FAIR that they could only clean up their bad image by giving Dan Peterson the boot.

So we're primarily talking about his message board interactions?

[Louis Midgley]

Okay. So Dehlin dissented. Again, it wasn't Dehlin who stopped publication - I think we all agree he didn't have that authority or power.

So for those who seem upset about the GS article not being published, why not look to the person who had the authority and made the decision to stop the publication. When it comes to the article not getting published, Dehlin is just a scapegoat because he made the call that brought the issue to light.

But Dehlin certainly thought he had Elder Jensen and Elder Holland in his pocket and that they could and would prevent the publication of Greg Smith's paper. What he did not realize is that there were those in high places who were asking when we were going to help deal with the problem he presents to the Church. I suspect that Dehlin was used by those who wanted Dan Peterson out of the Maxwell Institute, some for personal and others for what turns out to be ideological reasons, as has been demonstrated by what one of them posted on this message board. So it is likely that the decision was already made by those inside the Maxwell Institute to cancel the Review and move in some very vague new direction. Dehlin's being informed of Greg Smith's review may have been a way of getting him to complain and hence provide an excuse for cancelling the Review. If this is true, then Dehlin was merely a pawn. What is clear is that the Brethren were not behind the firing of Dan Peterson as editor of the Review. And they are now aware of Greg Smith's two essays. On 29 March 2012, I tried to explain to Dehlin that he did not want the Brethren to look into Greg Smith's paper. He told me they had done so, which was not true. All he had managed to do with get Elder Jensen and Elder Holland to listen to his survey, while others were anxious for Greg's paper to appear in public to counter Dehlin's survey. .

[Robert F. Smith]

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).

You need to read the Gregory Smith article on Dehlin in which he cites specific instances of false information. I am a personal witness to that phenomenon in his interview with Brant Gardner, in which he made a variety of false statements. Indeed, in his interview with Coe, which Gregory Smith discusses, he got so many things wrong that he and Coe ended up as the proverbial blind-leading-the-blind: They both fell in the ditch, leaving it to John Sorenson to reply and correct the false claims (Coe was no doubt very embarrased after the fact).

You may think that it is a little schoolyard fight when someone toys with other people's lives, but there are eternal consequences for the victims of Dehlin's careless and reckless claims. Dehlin seems to have no sense of responsibilty for his words and actions.

[David Bokovoy]

I have not followed, nor am I aware of all of the behind the scene’s story in terms of John Dehlin, especially when it comes to Facebook posts, etc. As we all know, online interactions with those with whom we disagree are often much more volatile than the should be. But having now read Greg’s review, I went and listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow. I'll just share that to me, John comes across as a sincere seeker of truth with a desire to perform a service to his LDS community.

He goes so far as to strongly encourage those who are considering leaving the Church to read Barlow’s book A Thoughtful Faith and states that Barlow was at the top of his list when it came to people he wanted to interview when he first created Mormon Stories. John goes so far as to state that "a thoughtful faith" was actually the original domain name that he wanted for his site and that by interviewing Barlow, John wanted to show his listeners that a person could be aware of challenging issues and possess a mature faith without leaving the Church.

Trying to make sense of one’s spiritual feelings during a crisis of faith can be a very difficult experience. At times, the person may feel bitter and say things that he or she later regrets. John has clearly made some mistakes in terms of his understanding of apologetic issues and the Book of Mormon and to the extent that his views have negatively influenced others it is truly unfortunate. For whatever reason, John is clearly a person who has made his own spiritual journey very public (he seems to me sincere in so doing), so it’s only natural that a critic will see different sides of John Dehlin depending upon where he's at religiously at any given moment.

I’m certainly not suggesting that John's mistakes in analysis and understanding of LDS Church history, doctrine, and scripture should not be publicly critiqued. On the contrary, they should, and I believe that in this sense, Greg has done an important service. But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts. This issue of "apostasy" and a crisis of faith is really a very complex issue.

[why me]

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.

I think that he was implying that by organizing conferences and chapters, people were led down the wrong path by him and by others. He led people down the wrong path by implication.

[Calm]

But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts.

For me, it felt like a 'part one'...with perhaps another sociological dynamic being explored through Dehlin's public behaviour...perhaps something to do with conversion stories.

[Calm]

I think that he was implying that by organizing conferences and chapters, people were led down the wrong path by him and by others. He led people down the wrong path by implication.

http://mormonstories.org/a-clarification-about-the-mormon-stories-regional-communities-and-conferences/

In the interview referenced above (and online) I have been asked why the OSF discontinued its sponsorship of the conferences and communities. While I now can see that I completely botched my explanation, allow me to briefly explain what I was trying to say.

While I want to (again) very strongly emphasize that my experiences with these communities and conferences were overwhelmingly positive and (dare I say) wholesome,throughout these interactions I became aware of (in some instances directly, and in some instances indirectly) a small degree of behaviors/activities that were very disturbing to me at the time. To be specific, these behaviors included alcohol and drug use, adultery, and some experimentation with open marriages.

In relating this, I need to also state that:

• NONE of this behavior was (to my knowledge) ever sponsored by the local Mormon Stories communities or their leaders
  
• ALL of this behavior can be found both inside and outside of Mormonism (including amongst active LDS church participation), and
  
• I completely reject and denounce any insinuation that these behaviors should be associated with disaffection from the LDS church. I tried to make this point very clear in my interview, and hopefully have made it very clear with this presentation.
  

I have been fighting for 8 years to dispel the myths that: 1) people leave the church in order to “sin,” or 2) leaving the church necessarily leads to unhappiness. Consequently, to know that some have interpreted my experiences in this way has made me very sad.

What was difficult/problematic for me about these behaviors had NOTHING to do with my personal judgments of them, nor of the people involved in them. These are fine, good, loving, moral people, and I do not judge them in any way. To be honest, my own eye is so full of beams that I have literally no room to judge others.

What was difficult for me was the following:

• I could not help but feel both saddened and at least partly responsible (as the leader of Mormon Stories and the OSF) as I watched some marriages dissolve in association with these conferences and communities. To put it simply, it broke my heart. Even though I know (in my logical brain) that divorce happens everywhere — when a spouse comes up to you and says, “My spouse met their lover at a Mormon Stories conference, and that was the beginning of the end of our marriage — so thanks a lot.” or “My spouse started drinking heavily once he started hanging around folks from the Mormon Stories community”….even though this was super rare for me…..it had an impact on me nonetheless. It felt awful.
  
• Even though these behaviors were relatively infrequent, I became fearful that Mormon Stories would become associated with some of these behaviors (since in life sometimes perception and/or reputation becomes reality — fair or not) — and the last thing I wanted to do was spoil the mission and impact of Mormon Stories (which is to build empathy for the plight of intellectuals, feminists, LGBT individuals and disaffected members from within the believing LDS community), and to SAVE families.
  
• Frankly, I worried that some of these behaviors would lead to rumors that would only confirm the stereotypes I was trying to combat.
  
• Many on the OSF board (myself included) became concerned that the conferences and communities would open the OSF up to potential law suits.
  
• It was my perception that a number of these communities (especially on Facebook) started to gain the reputation (fair or not) as being post-Mormon communities, wherein believers sometimes felt unwelcome or even mocked. As many of you know (again), our goal from the beginning has been to engage in projects wherein believers and non-believers both feel comfortable — and I did not feel like it would be good for Mormon Stories to be perceived as an organization that sponsored groups that were perceived to be hostile to belief.
  
• 
  

[Bill Hamblin]

I have not followed, nor am I aware of all of the behind the scene’s story in terms of John Dehlin, especially when it comes to Facebook posts, etc. As we all know, online interactions with those with whom we disagree are often much more volatile than the should be. But having now read Greg’s review, I went and listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow. I'll just share that to me, John comes across as a sincere seeker of truth with a desire to perform a service to his LDS community.

He goes so far as to strongly encourage those who are considering leaving the Church to read Barlow’s book A Thoughtful Faith and states that Barlow was at the top of his list when it came to people he wanted to interview when he first created Mormon Stories. John goes so far as to state that "a thoughtful faith" was actually the original domain name that he wanted for his site and that by interviewing Barlow, John wanted to show his listeners that a person could be aware of challenging issues and possess a mature faith without leaving the Church.

Trying to make sense of one’s spiritual feelings during a crisis of faith can be a very difficult experience. At times, the person may feel bitter and say things that he or she later regrets. John has clearly made some mistakes in terms of his understanding of apologetic issues and the Book of Mormon and to the extent that his views have negatively influenced others it is truly unfortunate. For whatever reason, John is clearly a person who has made his own spiritual journey very public (he seems to me sincere in so doing), so it’s only natural that a critic will see different sides of John Dehlin depending upon where he's at religiously at any given moment.

I’m certainly not suggesting that John's mistakes in analysis and understanding of LDS Church history, doctrine, and scripture should not be publicly critiqued. On the contrary, they should, and I believe that in this sense, Greg has done an important service. But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts. This issue of "apostasy" and a crisis of faith is really a very complex issue.

Everything you said is true. But it doesn't change some important facts:

1- Dehlin is consistently inconsistent. He says different things to different ideological groups at different times.

2- Dehlin regularly changes his beliefs; sometimes radically, and generally very publicly. (Personally I think he should work out his own issues before he starts publicly advising people on working out their issues.)

3- Because of these two things, Dehlin is something a public Rorschach test. Everyone can see in him whatever they want to see.

4- Each individual's personal apostasy is always complex. But the results of apostasy are generally very clearcut.

It is perfectly legitimate to critically respond to Dehlin's public attacks on the Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the current leaders, and LDS apologists. Critically responding to Dehlin's ideas is not a personal attack on Dehlin himself.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[sethpayne]

I’m certainly not suggesting that John's mistakes in analysis and understanding of LDS Church history, doctrine, and scripture should not be publicly critiqued. On the contrary, they should, and I believe that in this sense, Greg has done an important service. But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts. This issue of "apostasy" and a crisis of faith is really a very complex issue.

Deleted snark.

Edited February 26, 2013 by sethpayne

[David Bokovoy]

For me, it felt like a 'part one'...with perhaps another sociological dynamic being explored through Dehlin's public behaviour...perhaps something to do with conversion stories.

It's a complicated issue, and I'm not trying to be critical of Greg. I've simply chosen to share these personal thoughts publicly in the hopes that they might provide some help. I understand and appreciate how Greg Smith and others see these types of issues. For what it's worth, my approach is a bit different. This was made clear to me when Greg chose to share his opinions on Michael Quinn and his book on J. Rebuen Clark on my Facebook account after I shared with my family and friends how much I love the book (and I do, it's wonderful!!). In his efforts to help protect the Church, Greg wanted to make sure that others knew what a "poor" historian Quinn is and how despite my praise, just how problematic the book was in terms of its analysis. Despite our differences in approach/opinion, I'm grateful for Greg's devotion. Really. I am.

Eventually Greg shared that he had never read the book because he knew that he could not trust Quinn. It's too bad, at least from my perspective, because it really is a wonderful book.

Edited February 26, 2013 by David Bokovoy

[Bill Hamblin]

David, you poor poor soul. As Bill will certainly explain, you have a reading comprehension problem. Else, how could you have drawn such a conclusion??

Sorry, wrong slander.

[David Bokovoy]

It is perfectly legitimate to critically respond to Dehlin's public attacks on the Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the current leaders, and LDS apologists. Critically responding to Dehlin's ideas is not a personal attack on Dehlin himself.

I agree. And in this area, Greg has done a very helpful service. No doubt.

[why me]

So we're primarily talking about his message board interactions?

Actually, no. It was in his public statements on the Internet. But not a message board.

[why me]

I agree. And in this area, Greg has done a very helpful service. No doubt.

You are making me a little confused. On the one hand, you agree with greg but on the other hand, you don't. And both are stated rather forcefully. I have this feeling that maybe you were taken in by the hit piece rumor and now you don't know what to make of the article.

Edited February 26, 2013 by why me

[sethpayne]

You are making me a little confused. On the one hand, you agree with greg but on the other hand, you don't. And both are stated rather forcefully. I have this feeling that maybe you were taken in by the hit piece rumor and now you don't know what to make of the article.

Why me,

It is possible to appreciate many of the things Greg brings to light in his essay while having issues with other parts of the essay.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation. Even the essays/books I enjoy the most may have portions I take issue with.

Seth

[Bill Hamblin]

You are making me a little confused. On the one hand, you agree with greg but on the other hand, you don't. And both are stated rather forcefully. I have this feeling that maybe you were taken in by the hit piece rumor and now you don't know what to make of the article.

The problem is that David is such a nice guy that he always thinks the best of everyone. Unfortunately, sometimes you simply have to take a stand. Everybody can't be right all the time.

[Bill Hamblin]

Why me,

It is possible to appreciate many of the things Greg brings to light in his essay while having issues with other parts of the essay.

It's not an all-or-nothing situation. Even the essays/books I enjoy the most may have portions I take issue with.

Seth

Remarkably enough, I agree with Seth. And I would add, it's the same thing with Dehlin, it is possible to recognize that not everything he does attacks the Church. That doesn't mean he doesn't attack the Church.

[sethpayne]

Remarkably enough, I agree with Seth.

I think an angel somewhere just got his/her wings.

[Louis Midgley]

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.c...Question Survey -Jesus Christ

http://www.staylds.c...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.

I had not had a look at this before. It is proof of the mixed responses to what Dehlin was doing with that Stay thing. Some of the responses look to be sincere expressions of genuine faith, but others look like they had boiled up from the Recovery board. So some of what Dehlin managed was helpful for a few, but much was just the opposite. But we must keep in mind that Dan Peterson and others like him have been driving people out of the Church. As Greg Smith

[sethpayne]

Remarkably enough, I agree with Seth. And I would add, it's the same thing with Dehlin, it is possible to recognize that not everything he does attacks the Church. That doesn't mean he doesn't attack the Church.

Agreed. And I would add that some things Dehlin has done supports the Church -- as evidenced by those who found a way to return to activity via Mormon Stories.

I think one of the things that makes me a little uncomfortable about Smith's essay is that there is no mention of the many positive aspects of Mormon Stories. It is entirely focused on what Greg sees as negative.

To bring some balance I think facebook posts from people who have been helped by Dehlin could be quoted in the essay as well as a sociological exploration as to why Dehlin helps some members but is perceived by other members to be a wolf.

Without drawing attention to the many good things borne of Mormon Stories, the essay does read a bit lopsided.

[Ahab]

... there is no mention of the many positive aspects of Mormon Stories. It is entirely focused on what Greg sees as negative.

Ah, yeah. It's not as if Greg set out to say nice things about it. That would have interfered with his whole train of thought.

[Libs]

I have not followed, nor am I aware of all of the behind the scene’s story in terms of John Dehlin, especially when it comes to Facebook posts, etc. As we all know, online interactions with those with whom we disagree are often much more volatile than the should be. But having now read Greg’s review, I went and listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow. I'll just share that to me, John comes across as a sincere seeker of truth with a desire to perform a service to his LDS community.

He goes so far as to strongly encourage those who are considering leaving the Church to read Barlow’s book A Thoughtful Faith and states that Barlow was at the top of his list when it came to people he wanted to interview when he first created Mormon Stories. John goes so far as to state that "a thoughtful faith" was actually the original domain name that he wanted for his site and that by interviewing Barlow, John wanted to show his listeners that a person could be aware of challenging issues and possess a mature faith without leaving the Church.

Trying to make sense of one’s spiritual feelings during a crisis of faith can be a very difficult experience. At times, the person may feel bitter and say things that he or she later regrets. John has clearly made some mistakes in terms of his understanding of apologetic issues and the Book of Mormon and to the extent that his views have negatively influenced others it is truly unfortunate. For whatever reason, John is clearly a person who has made his own spiritual journey very public (he seems to me sincere in so doing), so it’s only natural that a critic will see different sides of John Dehlin depending upon where he's at religiously at any given moment.

I’m certainly not suggesting that John's mistakes in analysis and understanding of LDS Church history, doctrine, and scripture should not be publicly critiqued. On the contrary, they should, and I believe that in this sense, Greg has done an important service. But especially now that I have listened to John’s interview with Phillip Barlow, I’m not convinced Greg’s was an entirely accurate portrayal of John and his efforts. This issue of "apostasy" and a crisis of faith is really a very complex issue.

That was very well said. Exactly.