The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War

[Darren10]

Generically speaking perhaps, but for themselves....many have done so.

I would agree.

[pmccombs1]

He is a man who has stated he leads more people out of the Church than into it. For those who love the faith and want others to enjoy in its gifts, this is troubling.

Do you mean to say that he leads a few people in, but more people out? He's not very efficient at whatever it is he's trying to do, I guess.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you mean to say that he leads a few people in, but more people out? He's not very efficient at whatever it is he's trying to do, I guess.

I don't think it can properly be said that he's trying to lead anybody into it. More that he's trying to make doubters feel comfortable in their unbelief.

[Libs]

This reminds me of Kuhn. he talks about "accumulation of anomalies" that lead to a break down of the rules for normal research. A rejection of one paradigm is always simultaneously the adoption of another that seems better from that perspective. It's not a matter of facing self-evident facts but of having a model that best accounts for the observations at hand. But Ian Barbour also points out that there are always networks of assumptions involved, and always, a limited set of observations, and always a limiting set of methods and assumptions.. And that rather than reject an overall paradigm, one can often make adjustments within a network of assumptions.

It is important that anomaly can only appear "against a background of expectation," so if it turns out that one's expectations were faulty, and that a more tolerant and robust set of expectations can very often account for the same information that that another set of expectations experiences as anomalous. An expectation of perfection in people immediately sets up imperfection as potentially decisive. Even the appearance of imperfection will do, as Shakespeare's Othello demonstrates in his painful tragedy. Othello does not end after the murder of Desdemonia with a shrug and a comment that, "Well, it was an honest mistake. What else should I have done? Wouldn't you have done the same in my place? You have no right to judge me. Whatever happened to unconditional love and tolerance and free expression?" (If we were to cast the various roles in Othello from the participants in the Dehlin affair, who would play what parts?)

It is one thing to come across something like Mountain Meadows and decide, "God would not let such things happen among his people!" and quite another to ask, "How could such a thing have happened again?" since this sort of thing has happened often enough in human history under specific conditions, that a specific pattern of instigating circumstances and consequent human behavior emerges.

It is one thing to look at the First Vision accounts and say, "I would have expected every account to be identical!' and quite another thing to demonstrate the validity of that expectation against a broad sampling of human behavior.

It's one thing for a person to come across new information and decide "I've been lied to" and another coming across the same information to decide, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that. Either I was not paying attention, or my teachers did not know. I wonder where I can go to find out more so I understand it better?" The information does not interpret itself, any more than a seed plants and nourishes itself.

Or say, if I look at the Ensign full of conference reports, and see "Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" I could assume that this is an absolute statement, declaring that every LDS authority speaks with the full authority of God's sock puppet. Or I could read the passage in the context of D&C 1 as a whole and see that the God is just saying that he stands by what he says, via whatever transmission medium, but that I expressly should expect that not everything that his servants say is his word, because "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest" and that revelation is not done, complete, and on the shelf, but ongoing. And it's easy to go further and look at why a person might want to believe that their authority figures are all knowing and perfect and would never ever disappoint them in any way. That is one of the reasons I find the Perry Scheme and Myers-Briggs types so helpful. It lets me appreciate human diversity and gives me a much more tolerant and robust set of expectations.

The whole point of the parable of the sower is that the same seed [word] is not going to produce the same effects in every context. It's not just the self-interpreting list of hot button issues, but the soil, context, protection from predation, and the kinds of care and nurture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Yes, I think, you make some very good points, here. Mike Ash talks a lot about how some have expectations of leadership that are very unrealistic...making it very easy to be disappointed, when we discover they are as prone to error, as anyone. I was guilty of that (high expectations) of both church leadership (including Joseph Smith) and the church, in general. I made myself (my testimony) very vulnerable, by putting all of it up on a pedestal. I expected perfection, because this was Christ's Church, afterall.

Unfortunately, when one is in that mode and it starts coming down...it really comes crashing down all around you. Difficult to put the pieces back, after that.

[Darren10]

I don't think it can properly be said that he's trying to lead anybody into it. More that he's trying to make doubters feel comfortable in their unbelief.

That's how I see it: comfort the doubter's feelings.

[Teancum]

I don't think it can properly be said that he's trying to lead anybody into it. More that he's trying to make doubters feel comfortable in their unbelief.

Better said is he tries to reach out to those who are in an LDS faith crisis and work with them in whatever direction they wish to go. If they want to leave he helps them work through all that entails-family issues, social issues, the emotions it entails, etc. If they are trying to figure out how to stay LDS he tries to help with that as well. He did start a site called Stay LDS. Scott's description is much too simplistic and I think that is intentional.

[Teancum]

That's part of the point: no one has proven Mormonism false.

Nobody has proven it true either.

[Teancum]

That's how I see it: comfort the doubter's feelings.

Of course yo do. But it is not the whole picture.

[Hamilton Porter]

The Greg Smith piece came out. Dehlin has paid for making people to leave the Church (if I were FARMS I would cut him in the knees for that too). He's paid for his intellectual sloppiness. Join me in welcoming him back into full activity in the Church.

[Libs]

I don't think John intends to help people feel "comfortable in their doubts". He seeks for acceptance of those who are struggling in the church. I have seen him ask church leaders over and over...do you want us? Do you want those who struggle and can't, for whatever reason, believe ever jot and tittle that the church teaches. Does the church want these people?

[cinepro]

Better said is he tries to reach out to those who are in an LDS faith crisis and work with them in whatever direction they wish to go. If they want to leave he helps them work through all that entails-family issues, social issues, the emotions it entails, etc. If they are trying to figure out how to stay LDS he tries to help with that as well. He did start a site called Stay LDS. Scott's description is much too simplistic and I think that is intentional.

I've used this analogy elsewhere, but here's my take:

Years ago, a family member hit a rough spot in their marriage and went through counseling. In addition to couples counseling, she also went to personal counseling. As the personal counseling continued, she found herself becoming more and more enthused with the idea of ending the marriage. The couples counselor noticed this (the tone of the couples counseling had changed over the months as well). Upon further reflection, and after a few direct conversations with the person providing the individual counseling, she realized that this counselor actually had a very negative attitude towards marriage (and men in general), and felt it was her job to help women become more "independent" and live without relying on a male partner. My family member decided this wasn't her goal, and stopped seeing that counselor.

Likewise, John Dehlin has set himself up as a counselor for LDS who are having doubts about the Church. It seems obvious that such a counselor's views on God, Jesus, and the LDS Church would be pretty dang important to someone seeking such counseling. If Dehlin was being totally upfront and honest about his beliefs and goals, Greg Smith could have saved a lot of time and effort. People would read his essay and say "Hey dummy, we already know that" (which, I suspect, a lot of RFM/former-LDS did). But John had not been totally upfront and publicly honest about the degree of his doubts, and his feelings about the Church; the only way to find these things out was to read his postings in forums and on Facebook, or listen to hours of podcasts, which relatively few people are going to do.

[Kenngo1969]

Opps!! Sorry about that! Your response was very funny.

I'm glad you accepted it in the spirit in which it was intended, rather than feeling that I was attempting to make you the butt of my jokes!

[Darren10]

Nobody has proven it true either.

True, but the Holy Spirit testifies that it's true, depsite individual conclusions/determinations.

Of course yo do. But it is not the whole picture.

I think that's a very complete picture of Dehlin.

.

[Darren10]

I don't think John intends to help people feel "comfortable in their doubts". He seeks for acceptance of those who are struggling in the church. I have seen him ask church leaders over and over...do you want us? Do you want those who struggle and can't, for whatever reason, believe ever jot and tittle that the church teaches. Does the church want these people?

Here's a little play I came up with just now based on the very words of John Dehlin.

LDS Dude1: I'm LDS. I live the law of chastity and the Word of Wisdom.

John Dehlin: You're a good and moral person.

LDS Dude2: I'm LDS but I commit adultery and smoke weed when I feel like it.

John Dehlin: You're a good and moral person.

Whatever a person's goal in life is, John Dehlin's there to make that person feel comfortable. It matters not what how much John Dehlin has asked church leaders if they'd accept said person. Which, by the way, according to how you worded the scenario, why would they NOT accept these people? If a person wants to stay in the Church or leave it, there's no moral distiction made by Dehlin, he just wants ot make their journey as complicated-free as possible.

[Calm]

I think that's a very complete picture of Dehlin.

People are never that simple.

[Libs]

Here's a little play I came up with just now based on the very words of John Dehlin.

LDS Dude1: I'm LDS. I live the law of chastity and the Word of Wisdom.

John Dehlin: You're a good and moral person.

LDS Dude2: I'm LDS but I commit adultery and smoke weed when I feel like it.

John Dehlin: You're a good and moral person.

Whatever a person's goal in life is, John Dehlin's there to make that person feel comfortable. It matters not what how much John Dehlin has asked church leaders if they'd accept said person. Which, by the way, according to how you worded the scenario, why would they NOT accept these people? If a person wants to stay in the Church or leave it, there's no moral distiction made by Dehlin, he just wants ot make their journey as complicated-free as possible.

Darren, this is a very unfair portrait of John Dehlin. One of the reasons he stopped, personally, supporting the Mormon Stories Conferences was because he didn't always approve of some of the things that went on there.

John has his own struggles and he is now trying to deal with that within the church. I think he deserves some credit for that, as I know (from personal experience) where he is at, right now, is not easy.

[why me]

I don't think John intends to help people feel "comfortable in their doubts". He seeks for acceptance of those who are struggling in the church. I have seen him ask church leaders over and over...do you want us? Do you want those who struggle and can't, for whatever reason, believe ever jot and tittle that the church teaches. Does the church want these people?

The general authorities have answered his question with a resounding yes. John told the story of the tent (the church) when the GA said (in answer to John's question) that it doesn't matter if a person is in the front of the tent or standing far in the back, they are welcome inside the tent. Hopefully, John is still not asking the same question now since it was answered

[Glenn101]

People are never that simple.

I am.

Glenn

[Darren10]

Darren, this is a very unfair portrait of John Dehlin. One of the reasons he stopped, personally, supporting the Mormon Stories Conferences was because he didn't always approve of some of the things that went on there.

John has his own struggles and he is now trying to deal with that within the church. I think he deserves some credit for that, as I know (from personal experience) where he is at, right now, is not easy.

John Dehlin is more than welcome to come to Church / return to church. I do hope and sincerely pray his return is full and complete. But what you say is my unfair portrayal of John Dehlin is based upon his own words *after* he decided to leave Mormon Stories *conferences* (not Mormon Stories itself). He himself wanted to clarify that the adulterers and drug users at the conferences were good moral people. Where do I err in this portrayal?

Dehlin starts:

In my recent interview entitled “John Dehlin and Faith Reconstruction” I made some comments about the Mormon Stories Regional Communities and Conferences that have apparently hurt many people, so I’d like to offer a few brief clarifications and a sincere apology.

I think his intent is pretty clear at this point. He then continued his "clarification" and "apologies" by stating:

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.

(red bold mine)

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

How are adulterers and drug users "fine, good, moral people" different than non drug users and adulterers "fine, good, and moral people"?

[Darren10]

People are never that simple.

Interesting. How is he different?

[Darren10]

I am.

Glenn

Heh. No doubt.

[Darren10]

Libs;

Then there's this part of my already posted John Dehlin quote:

To be honest, my own eye is so full of beams that I have literally no room to judge others.

Well, that sure doesn't apply to Dan Peterson, Wlliam Hamblin, or Louis Midgley, does it? But to drug users and adulterers at the Open Stories Foundation, hey hands off the judgement according to Dehlin.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Darren10

[Libs]

John Dehlin is more than welcome to come to Church / return to church. I do hope and sincerely pray his return is full and complete. But what you say is my unfair portrayal of John Dehlin is based upon his own words *after* he decided to leave Mormon Stories *conferences* (not Mormon Stories itself). He himself wanted to clarify that the adulterers and drug users at the conferences were good moral people. Where do I err in this portrayal?

Dehlin starts:

I think his intent is pretty clear at this point. He then continued his "clarification" and "apologies" by stating:

(red bold mine)

http://mormonstories...nd-conferences/

How are adulterers and drug users "fine, good, moral people" different than non drug users and adulterers "fine, good, and moral people"?

Yes, he is saying those who wanted to do those things were a very small minority.

[Libs]

Libs;

Then there's this part of my already posted John Dehlin quote:

Well, that sure doesn't apply to Dan Peterson, Wlliam Hamblin, or Louis Midgley, does it? But to drug users and adulterers at the Open Stories Foundation, hey hands off the judgement according to Dehlin.

The judgments seem to be flying in both directions, don't you think?

[why me]

The judgments seem to be flying in both directions, don't you think?

Did you miss my post about how the GA answered John's question about being welcome in the church? The symbolism of the tent?