Dehlin's Latest Hypothesis

[why me]

Again, there is a difference between 2,000 year old truth claims and 200 year old truth claims. Also, there is the nature of the claims -- SeekingUnderstanding did a great job of explaining that so I won't try to repeat it here.

Also, it's not just about the history, it's about troubling claims (some of which were only recently abandoned) of what God told us to do such as preventing a race of people from having access to saving ordinances.

This may be true. But all churches have troubling claims...I see not one church without a troubling claim to its existence. And most churches claim some sort of truth. The catholic church has a 2000 year history and yet, much is documented by history. But this history is not written by the catholic church in a book but it is history of men and women who made catholic history for better of for worse. Likewise for the methodists, baptists etc. Show me a church with a perfect history and i will eat my cowboy boots and I will throw in my boyhood baseball glove to boot. 

 

The only church that seems to be harrassed over its history is the lds church. And yet, the more established churches certainly have a crummy history too. In fact, much worse than the lds when we consider the religious wars in europe, the crusades, and genocide of world populations, ie, the Native Americans.

[why me]

Lets say that I were a catholic john dehlin. I know that I could find a host of issues to champion,

Issues that I would like to change. For example, women should be ordained priests, priests should have the right to marry, children should not go into the booth alone to confess their sins, abortion, gay rights, divorced remarried catholics should receive the communion etc. I would have a host of issues to champion. No problem at all. But at the end of the day, why would I be championing these things in a public wau if not to get my catholic public acclaim back? At the end of the day, I would also need to sit down and see some positives in my own faith and be happy that I was a catholic. And maybe it would be best to just be quiet for awhile and enjoy my religion and my relationship with god.

[rockpond]

Not really.

It's more a glass houses/stones thing.

But as far as Mister Dehlin is concerned: he's a self-constructed, self-serving public figure. He generates Mormon-related controversies virtually ex nihilo and places himself firmly in the middle of them. He flatly contradicts the leaders of the Church and expects his little following of NOM's and MINO's to listen to him in preference to them.

Questioning his activities and agenda is entirely appropriate.

And there is simply no question that Mister Dehlin is an actively proselytizing apostate. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that he isn't being up front about what he's really trying to achieve.

Regards,

Pahoran

He's still producing podcasts that encourage people to stay in the church. (See the two part Brad Kramer interview from just two weeks ago.)

He also played a significant role in helping me find a way to stay in the church.

You ought to consider that he isn't as flat a character as you make him out to be.

Edited May 1, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Open rebellion against the Church and its leaders.

See any of his self-promoting podcasts.

For example, his recent "The Ally Within" talk, wherein he marketed himself as the Mormon Vidkun Quisling to the Church's "gay" enemies.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

Being an LGBT ally is a bad thing? I thought we'd been counseled to love our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

[rockpond]

This may be true. But all churches have troubling claims...I see not one church without a troubling claim to its existence. And most churches claim some sort of truth. The catholic church has a 2000 year history and yet, much is documented by history. But this history is not written by the catholic church in a book but it is history of men and women who made catholic history for better of for worse. Likewise for the methodists, baptists etc. Show me a church with a perfect history and i will eat my cowboy boots and I will throw in my boyhood baseball glove to boot.

The only church that seems to be harrassed over its history is the lds church. And yet, the more established churches certainly have a crummy history too. In fact, much worse than the lds when we consider the religious wars in europe, the crusades, and genocide of world populations, ie, the Native Americans.

I would still suggest here that the level of criticisms is correlated to the level of truth claims. And claims of direct, ongoing contact with divinity. If you are going to claim that your activities to deny rights to gay people are what God wants... Expect to be challenges.

The Church is under no requirement to defend its truth claims. It is choosing to do so and for good reason.

[Brian 2.0]

 

For example, his recent "The Ally Within" talk, wherein he marketed himself as the Mormon Vidkun Quisling to the Church's "gay" enemies.

 

You're welcome.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I'm assuming you're talking about the TED talk listed below:

 

Thanks for pointing me to it as I thought it was rather good.  I encourage others to check it out.

 

But in it I found nothing of "wherein he marketed himself as the Mormon Vidkun Quisling to the Church's "gay" enemies."

 

Maybe I missed... but I never heard Vidkun Quisling mentioned or anything actually about the church's gay enemies.  Or that he was even metaphorically some final solution to the gay issue.   I did hear a lot of talk and pleading for others to love LGBT people in their lives.

 

Did I watch the same thing you did?

[Brian 2.0]

See any of his self-promoting podcasts.

 

 

I have listened to quite a number of them.  Self promoting, maybe.  I'm not fighting you on that.  My CFR was for the following:

 

 

Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that he isn't being up front about what he's really trying to achieve.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I'm not asking for evidence that he's an apostate, or self-promoting, but where he is being deceptive about what "he's really trying to achieve."

 

A reference to an pro-LGBT talk certainly isn't that... unless you are trying to say he secretly wants gays to be ostracized.

 

As a baseline for what he's saying he wants to achieve I would say the Mormon Stories Podcast mission statement would be the easiest to draw from.  Here it is for your reference:

 

http://mormonstories.org/about/

 

and here's his "about me" section:

 

http://mormonstories.org/john-dehlin/

 

In those I get a pretty clear sense of what he's trying to do and what he's about.

 

My CFR is for the "abundant evidence" that he isn't being up front with all this.

 

 

 

 

[Pahoran]

Being an LGBT ally is a bad thing? I thought we'd been counseled to love our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Ever the wide-eyed ingenue.

We have indeed "been counseled to love our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

We have not been counselled to surrender to the "gay marriage" jihad.

I rather think you know that it is on that topic specifically that Mister Dehlin is marketing himself as an "ally within" the Church.

Just like Quisling was an "ally within" the Norwegian government.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I have listened to quite a number of them.  Self promoting, maybe.  I'm not fighting you on that.  My CFR was for the following:

 

 

 

I'm not asking for evidence that he's an apostate, or self-promoting, but where he is being deceptive about what "he's really trying to achieve."

 

A reference to an pro-LGBT talk certainly isn't that... unless you are trying to say he secretly wants gays to be ostracized.

Is your obtuseness here deliberate?

 

My CFR is for the "abundant evidence" that he isn't being up front with all this.

Very well.

Dehlin says that he and Mormon Stories are objective, that their material and presentation are

balanced, and that they do not try to push people into either leaving or staying in the Church. He also says

that if he tells people to leave the Church, his own membership will be in jeopardy.20 His status as a

member of the Church assists his efforts to spread his message among members who might be less

trusting of a non-Mormon or anti-Mormon source saying the same things. He adapts his message to the

audience he addresses—Latter-day Saints often get a modified presentation of his stance and actions

when compared to those opposed to the Church.

And:

I now believe that people should follow their joy. . . . period. In or out of the church. That said, I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet

work—and I’m perfectly happy if they’re happy. I mean that. . . . Steve . . . I think your story

could help a lot of people. It certainly helped me through a [tough] spot back in early 2000.

These quotes are from Greg Smith's review, Dubious 'Mormon' Stories. You can read it here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

"...if I do [Grant] Palmer, I do [Richard] Bushman so they’ll always get this sense that I’m trying to be fair and balanced."

That's pretty close to an admission that the "fair and balanced" bit is window-dressing.

"Palmer is worth a Bushman."

That's what it's really about. Interviewing Bushman is Mister Dehlin's way of sugar-coating the Grant Palmer pill.

The guy is as phony as a Thai Rolex.

Regards,

Pahoran

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The lutheran church can make the same claim. They came into existence because catholicism fell away from the true god. So, we have martin luther. We also have Knox, Calvin, and Wesley. They all based their claim on the truth. I think that christianity has been attacked by atheists who attempt ot prove christianity false. But i have no knowledge of a general attack on an established church based on its own history to claim that it is false as it has been done with the lds church in such a concerted effort. We can all look at the three men above and find imperfections, but its members don't seem to care because they most likely have an understanding that no human being is perfect.

Luther, Knox, Calvin and Wesley all based on their arguement on "Sola Scriptura." I have never heard anyone claim that Luther was a prophet who saw God, or that Luther's authority came from such a calling. Each of these churches is attacked on the basis of their truth claims. In this case - the authenticity of the bible.

[Tacenda]

That's probably what they said about Joseph Smith when he tried to change the world for the better. Or the others that have done so in the world. Just as Martin Luther King did, and even Jesus Christ. He's fighting for both gay and women's issues and LDS member's issues.. They are in the minority, so who else has their back but a few? Who else will do it, or can when the format isn't there? He has the capabilities, with podcasts or FB. Joseph's was the BoM, and Jesus' His miracles. I'm in no way comparing him to the Saviour, but showing that they spoke up when it would anger those around them.

[USU78]

So you're just casting aspersions?

Nice.

You funny

[USU78]

I agree with you (surprise) that no other church is put under such pressure about its past history. For example, when I was a Baptist, we never ONCE asked church leaders to "come clean" about the actions of the Anabaptists in Munster and elsewhere during the early days of the Reformation. It wasn't even an issue.

However, the Baptists also weren't claiming that they were the "one true Church" to whom HF restored ALL priesthood authority because none of the other churches could be trusted with it due to their errors and wickedness. In short, I think we've set ourselves up for heightened scrutiny because our belief in a Great Apostasy logically implies that HF could withdraw priesthood authority again if His "current" Church strays from the path. In short, it goes with the territory and unless we're willing to relinquish our exclusive claim to priesthood authority, we're going to have to remain under the spotlight.

no, they just were and are consigning the likes of us to a special cultish and unChristian hell.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The only church that seems to be harrassed over its history is the lds church. And yet, the more established churches certainly have a crummy history too. In fact, much worse than the lds when we consider the religious wars in europe, the crusades, and genocide of world populations, ie, the Native Americans.

 

I'd say the catholic church faces plenty of harassment over its history, and they have made serious attempts to address it. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

 

The entire reformation and protestant movement is based on the idea that Catholics got it wrong and is an attack on their history. 

[why me]

I'm assuming you're talking about the TED talk listed below:

 

Thanks for pointing me to it as I thought it was rather good.  I encourage others to check it out.

 

But in it I found nothing of "wherein he marketed himself as the Mormon Vidkun Quisling to the Church's "gay" enemies."

 

Maybe I missed... but I never heard Vidkun Quisling mentioned or anything actually about the church's gay enemies.  Or that he was even metaphorically some final solution to the gay issue.   I did hear a lot of talk and pleading for others to love LGBT people in their lives.

 

Did I watch the same thing you did?

He was addressing a secular college and brought up the church often. Why? Was this a mormon thing or a general population thing. So, if I attended this event and I were a catholic, what exactly would I get from it? Mormons should be gay allies? But if I am a catholic, I suppose that I could just ignore it. Why attempt to make the lds church look bad?

[why me]

I'd say the catholic church faces plenty of harassment over its history, and they have made serious attempts to address it. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

 

The entire reformation and protestant movement is based on the idea that Catholics got it wrong and is an attack on their history. 

A wiki just doesn't do it. Has the catholic church written a comprehensive history of their church, covering all the angles and interpretations, making the book a thousand pages of research history? I don't think so. The vatican says very little about the history of the RC church and I see no book published by the vatican about it.

 

However, the critics want the lds church to publish a comprehensive history of its history, covering all the controversies that the critics say should be covered, and studied in church by all members.

Edited May 1, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't get your analogy... How is he throwing spaghetti?

I understood it perfectly.

 

He plays to his following of disaffected members and ex-members. He floats trial balloons to see what will catch their attention or excite their outrage. If something seems to him to have legs, he'll run with it.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

That's probably what they said about Joseph Smith when he tried to change the world for the better. Or the others that have done so in the world. Just as Martin Luther King did, and even Jesus Christ. He's fighting for both gay and women's issues and LDS member's issues.. They are in the minority, so who else has their back but a few? Who else will do it, or can when the format isn't there? He has the capabilities, with podcasts or FB. Joseph's was the BoM, and Jesus' His miracles. I'm in no way comparing him to the Saviour, but showing that they spoke up when it would anger those around them.

 

We are comparing Dehlin's efforts with the Masters'?

 

Are you quite sure you want to walk that there street?

[Brian 2.0]

These quotes are from Greg Smith's review, Dubious 'Mormon' Stories. You can read it here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

"...if I do [Grant] Palmer, I do [Richard] Bushman so they’ll always get this sense that I’m trying to be fair and balanced."

That's pretty close to an admission that the "fair and balanced" bit is window-dressing.

Here's the full quote from that:

 

For the people who want to learn, you want to feel as safe as possible. Now, I’m not trying to fool them. My goal isn’t to try to get them to leave. My goal is for them to get all the facts. So I don’t feel like I’m trying to deceive them, but I don’t want to have them turn me off before they even listen. . . . I feel like I hit the tough issues. I just try to interview them in an objective way, and try and have that balance, if I do [Grant] Palmer, I do [Richard] Bushman so they’ll always get this sense that I’m trying to be fair and balanced.

I definitely think he was trying to be fair and balanced at the beginning.  As he continued his own bias for sure came through more and more as he attempted to be balanced.  

 

I'm not sure today he would put forth Mormon Stories as the "fair and balanced" and "objective" way to learn about the troubling issues.  There's certainly no claim to those phrases anywhere on his site or promotional materials.  The quote above is 2 1/2 years old and that's a millennia of time in terms of his changes to Dehlin's approach.

 

In fact his whole mission statement and subtitle on ever page of his site is:  "exploring, celebrating, and challenging Mormon culture through stories." [my underline]

 

I think the "fair and balanced" at this point is a bit of a straw man.  

 

And here's what he says about himself:

 

 

I have deep love for the LDS church, for its members, and for its former members.  At present, I consider myself to be an unorthodox, unorthoprax Mormon.  I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but I no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

 

You can call him a wolf if you like, but I don't buy that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing when he's constantly been telling people exactly where he's at.

 

He's trying to push the Mormon tent wider.  Unabashedly promoting things like LGBT issues and ordination of women, modeling things like Reformed Judaism where you can believe at all sorts of levels and still be seen as equal in the fold.  It's fine to disagree with him on that.

 

He used to be big with StayLDS, but backed away from that when he admitted that he believed it might not always be the answer for people in certain situations.  

 

He supports people who choose to leave and he supports people who choose to stay.  

 

Do you believe his true intentions are to tear down the church and get as many people to leave as he can?

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

He's trying to push the Mormon tent wider. Unabashedly promoting things like LGBT issues and ordination of women, modeling things like Reformed Judaism where you can believe at all sorts of levels and still be seen as equal in the fold. It's fine to disagree with him on that.....

Do you believe his true intentions are to tear down the church and get as many people to leave as he can?

I believe he would prefer to make the Church over in his own image, but if he can't do that then given his past history of attempting to shut people down who disagree with him, I can easily see him move completely into opposition with the Church if he is ever excommunicated or something else happens that convinces him he won't be able to change it from the inside. Edited May 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe he would prefer to make the Church over in his own image.

As I see it, there are at least two ways to go about destroying the Church.

 

One is to seek to dissolve it altogether. A great many anti-Mormon sectarians and secularists would love to do just that.

 

Another is to try to change its essence until it scarcely resembles in any meaningful sense what it was before. To hijack it, as it were, or, in terms that calmoriah used here, to make it over in one's own image. This seems to be the preferred method of unbelievers who remain nominal Mormons.

 

Afterthought:

 

Of course, neither of these will succeed, as Christ declared that He will not allow the gates of hell to prevail against His Church.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Luther, Knox, Calvin and Wesley all based on their arguement on "Sola Scriptura." I have never heard anyone claim that Luther was a prophet who saw God, or that Luther's authority came from such a calling. Each of these churches is attacked on the basis of their truth claims. In this case - the authenticity of the bible.

 

Not only that, but on the reasonableness of their several interpretations and "shadings" of scripture.

[mormonnewb]

I am sure that the baptists don't claim that they are not the true church. No, this is a mormon critic thing. They have managed to put the conversation with the history. The baptists became the baptists because they thought that they could do it better. The catholics and the orthodox also make a 'truth' claim for their religion.

The Baptists became the Baptists simply because they thought that infant baptism was ineffective. They didn't have any thoughts of restoring the "true Gospel" and to this day, they are non-credal (at least in theory).

As for the Catholics, they do claim one true churchiness and their history is also highly scrutinized. In fact, a typical Medieval History course in college is pretty much nothing more than How the Catholic Church Messed Up Europe 101.

Once again, it's a self-inflicted wound. If you claim that God likes you best, people are going to look at your history to see if it's true.

[Brian 2.0]

Another is to try to change its essence until it scarcely resembles in any meaningful sense what it was before. To hijack it, as it were, or, in terms that calmoriah used here, to make it over in one's own image. This seems to be the preferred method of unbelievers who remain nominal Mormons.

Most unbelievers I know that still attend, myself being one of them, go because of the joy of community and sense of comfort that the tradition gives, despite the fact that they don't agree with a lot of what is said.

Maybe I just haven't been invited to the secret meetings where is unbelievers work out the hijacking plot.

[stemelbow]

Another is to try to change its essence until it scarcely resembles in any meaningful sense what it was before.

I sometimes wonder if Joseph Smith suddenly appeared without having seen the world since his death and was unable to recognize the Church. Its probably a world away from what he intended in many respects. But that's ok. The Church seems to have been changing since its inception. Little by little and bit by bit we learn. Little by little and bit by bit we change. I don't fear change. Some change is good, as they say. And we're not perfect, by any means, so let's see what else we need to learn and then implement, I say.