John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[mormonnewb]

I think you are confused about the purpose of the piece.

Dehlin was making certain claims about himself that were contradictory. The piece addressed the credibility of his claims about what he was doing, not the Church's. You may disagree about how it was done, but given the number of letters FM was receiving about families that were suffering after a member had become a fan of Dehlin and had left the Church, it seemed reasonable to me for this to have been done. I can see why someone who was not aware of this happening might wonder why it was needed.

This is just the problem that I have with this piece. Someone calls and says, "My husband has heard these things on the Internet and now, he no longer believes that the Church is true." However, rather than attacking the actual claims of "untruth," they go after Dehlin and his "motives." Dehlin could be the anti-Christ himself but that does not in anyway diminish a claim that the BofM has anachronisms.

Interestingly, the piece actually does tackle some of the "facts" posited by Dehlin's guests, such as the false claim that the BofM mentions coinage. However, it spends far much time challenging Dehlin under the apparent assumption that a person who has lost their testimony will have it magically restored when the Dehlin dragon is slain.

[Yirgacheffe]

The problem is very simple. You cannot be there when the child is with the teacher after school or with a coach or with a school counselor etc. Unless of course, you instruct the teacher never to be alone with your child, not even during a help session etc. The chances of being molested by a coach is far more likely than being molested during a bishop's interview.

As I said it is a risk/benefit call, I find the benefits of allowing time with my child to teachers outweigh the risk, and no teacher has ever taken my child behind closed doors to provide extra help it has always been in the classroom with open doors and wall to wall windows on one side of the room. Private one on one time with coaches has also never come up all conversations about their performance have been carried out on the field so to speak, out of earshot but in sight of all the parents and team members. No coach has ever asked to be alone with my kids for any reason, and I don't see why they would. If they start to request it then that's a red flag and I would make sure I was there when my kids were with coaches. I see no benefit what so ever in allowing private time for personal sexual interviews with clergy. So you see I don't have any benefit to balance against even the smallest of risks that clergy pose. Nor do I have a problem, I have talked to my kids about what is appropriate and what is not, one of the things I've taught my kids is that any adult trying to tell them they need to see them in private is an issue they should bring to me immediately.

[mormonnewb]

As you know -- or would, had you bothered to read any more than just cherry-picking for something to confirm your predetermined assumptions -- Smith drew no such conclusions. This was merely background material.

But as you know -- or would, had you bothered to read any more than just cherry-picking for something to confirm your predetermined assumptions -- the Smith review was not about Mister Dehlin's "life history." It was about his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcasts.

A fact Mister Dehlin and his colleagues are eager to obfuscate.

I'm sure such a conclusion is indeed available to an avid Dehlinite who, by his own admission, avoided reading the whole thing.

It's not available to me. But then, I actually did read it.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't need to drink a whole bottle of wine to know that it has turned to vinegar.

However, since you did the reading for me, please tell me how his income from Mormon Stories AT ALL impacts the reliability of the information conveyed on his podcast. And in doing so, please state your annual income so that we may assess the reliability of your answer.

[Pahoran]

I don't need to drink a whole bottle of wine to know that it has turned to vinegar.

A glib but seriously flawed analogy, since a bottle of wine is essentially homogeneous, whereas a 100-page essay is not.

However, since you did the reading for me, please tell me how his income from Mormon Stories AT ALL impacts the reliability of the information conveyed on his podcast. And in doing so, please state your annual income so that we may assess the reliability of your answer.

Since Smith did not claim that Mister Dehlin's "income from Mormon Stories AT ALL impacts the reliability of the information conveyed on his podcast," your question is moot.

I thought I had explained that to you in terms quite easy to understand.

Perhaps I was mistaken?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

A glib but seriously flawed analogy, since a bottle of wine is essentially homogeneous, whereas a 100-page essay is not.

Since Smith did not claim that Mister Dehlin's "income from Mormon Stories AT ALL impacts the reliability of the information conveyed on his podcast," your question is moot.

I thought I had explained that to you in terms quite easy to understand.

Perhaps I was mistaken?

Regards,

Pahoran

So you agree that it is a completely superfluous piece of information? I'd sure like to spend an hour reading 100 pages of that; perhaps, I can find out Dehlin's eye and hair color or the name of his first pet.

Of all of the THOUSANDS of pieces of irrelevant information, isn't it interesting that they threw in the fact that he profits (barely) from the podcast. I'm sure it's just a coinky-dink. Or was it?

[Storm Rider]

This is just the problem that I have with this piece. Someone calls and says, "My husband has heard these things on the Internet and now, he no longer believes that the Church is true." However, rather than attacking the actual claims of "untruth," they go after Dehlin and his "motives." Dehlin could be the anti-Christ himself but that does not in anyway diminish a claim that the BofM has anachronisms.

Interestingly, the piece actually does tackle some of the "facts" posited by Dehlin's guests, such as the false claim that the BofM mentions coinage. However, it spends far much time challenging Dehlin under the apparent assumption that a person who has lost their testimony will have it magically restored when the Dehlin dragon is slain.

 

I think the problem with Dehlin is that he poses as a committed LDS individual, yet he leads people away from truth, away from the gospel, and down a path that leads to less happiness. Understand that I don't have problems with people who find another church, faith, or belief system that works better for them; I have a significant problem with anyone that is a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

 

He is not a person I respect; that lack of respect is directly related to his actions.

[why me]

True, but they should be allowed to have a parent or YM / YW President if they like. This would protect the child and the Bishop from things being misunderstood...the best thing is to limit the Bishop to the single question of; "Do you keep the Law of Chasity"?

If the youth says no, then another adult should be present for any follow up.

I tend to doubt that any youth would be prepared to confess sexual sins in front of a YW president Or a YM president. We may be looking at a person who is 15 years old or even 17. Hardly a child. If you were going to the bishop for a sexual sin would you want your mom and YM or YW president there for protection? And do you think that a 16 year old may answer yes to the question when mom or dad are there, unless of course they know about it already?

[why me]

As John's podcasts changed from faith to doubt and as mormonstories chapters and conferences were formed, I don't think that members who attended these events and listened to the podcasts were strengthened . But that was only my humble opinion following john's podcasts from the very beginning. I think however the problem occurred when John was planning his comeback to the church when the Smith piece was going to appear. The piece was squashed by the author and john came back to the church right around the same time

However, it was unknown that john was going to return to church when all this was happening to the piece that was written.

Edited May 5, 2014 by why me

[Pahoran]

So you agree that it is a completely superfluous piece of information? I'd sure like to spend an hour reading 100 pages of that; perhaps, I can find out Dehlin's eye and hair color or the name of his first pet.

This is not a binary solution set, Noob. I find it neither "completely superfluous" nor nefariously incriminating to know that Mister Dehlin derives an income from his internet hobby.

Of all of the THOUSANDS of pieces of irrelevant information, isn't it interesting that they threw in the fact that he profits (barely) from the podcast. I'm sure it's just a coinky-dink. Or was it?

Background, Newbie. It's part of the whole picture.

Another part of the whole picture is that Mister Dehlin, whom you've evidently decided to defend, talks out of different sides of his mouth depending upon his audience. He tells believing Latter-day Saints that he's trying to help them make sense out of the historical material (despite having made no serious attempt to understand it) while reassuring anti-Mormons that his efforts are a net win for them. More people leave the Church than stay because of his podcasts; "Palmer is worth a Bushman."

Yet another is the fact that Mister Dehlin, much like yourself, doesn't bother actually reading any of the relevant literature, but prefers to rely upon hasty (and often second-hand) impressions of it; but he doesn't hesitate to give his impressions as though they were settled facts.

And all of that is in the review. Did you stop reading before you got to those parts?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

No and no.

 

Great, the individual was just like my daughter. Crap happens and the sky is still not falling.

[mormonnewb]

This is not a binary solution set, Noob. I find it neither "completely superfluous" nor nefariously incriminating to know that Mister Dehlin derives an income from his internet hobby.Background, Newbie. It's part of the whole picture.Another part of the whole picture is that Mister Dehlin, whom you've evidently decided to defend, talks out of different sides of his mouth depending upon his audience. He tells believing Latter-day Saints that he's trying to help them make sense out of the historical material (despite having made no serious attempt to understand it) while reassuring anti-Mormons that his efforts are a net win for them. More people leave the Church than stay because of his podcasts; "Palmer is worth a Bushman."Yet another is the fact that Mister Dehlin, much like yourself, doesn't bother actually reading any of the relevant literature, but prefers to rely upon hasty (and often second-hand) impressions of it; but he doesn't hesitate to give his impressions as though they were settled facts.And all of that is in the review. Did you stop reading before you got to those parts?Regards,Pahoran

Of course, in your continual efforts to vilify Dehlin (and me by association), you continue to miss the point. There are many Mormons who come to doubt the Church's truth claims, and not ALL of them were influenced by Mormon Stories. And to counter that FACT, the review (and several people on this board) point to supposed deficiencies in Dehlin's character. To which I simply ask, "So what?" I could learn that Dehlin eats live babies at every meal, but that would not convince me, of say, the historicity of the BoM. If Mormon lives are being "ruined" by false information, the answer isn't to supply them with salacious details about the lives of the Church's critics. The answer is to supply them with the TRUTH.

I confess that the FAIR and FARMS sites are great resources for this purpose. I simply object to those times when they decide to attack the messenger instead of the message. I find it most objectionable because it seems to assume a level of immaturity on the part of the reader. "Don't believe him. He's a poopy head!"

A rational and intelligent person doesn't judge the relative merits of a historian's claims on a podcast on the basis of, say, whether the podcast HOST is honest in answering temple recommend questions. Yet, this is one of the things that the "review" delved into. Really? If Dehlin was sleeping with his bishop's wife (and his bishop), how would that affect the reliability of the podcast guest who claimed, say, that JS had a history of sexual indiscretions. Not one iota! The real issues are in the reliability of the data and the proper inferences to be drawn from such data.

In spots the review does this, but it spends far too much time focused on Dehlin's character (as opposed to the epistemology of his guests). Interestingly, there was an episode of Momon Stories in which an apologist came on to refute claims of JS's sexual indiscretions that had been claimed by a previous guest. The apologist went through the data step by step, differentiating between first person contemporaneous accounts and less reliable data and pointing to different conclusions to be drawn from the data. The apologist did not pull out sporadic and random statements from the critic's past but simply dealt with the issue at hand. He was very convincing.

In this thread, we've seen some with this approach. They gave reasoned arguments for why the worthiness interview process should remain unchanged. However, others felt it was enough to simply express their disdain for Dehlin. "He's at it again, causing trouble and glorifying himself in the process." As if true, it would have ANY bearing on whether our current worthiness bishop interview process places children (and bishops) at risk. Should we subject our kids to possible abuse to show Dehlin who's boss? Or should we discuss the merits of the proposal itself?

[Storm Rider]

You two are talking past one another. No one is saying that corrections are unneeded and the Church can and should do a better job of teaching history.  That is a separate topic.

 

The topic of Dehlin's actions are another topic - actually the topic of this thread - and his efforts are not helpful, he does not edify the body of Christ, and he is not a positive influence.  I hope to high heaven he is unaware, but I believe his efforts harm far more than aid in the spiritual welfare of the disciples of Christ.  

[Pahoran]

Of course, in your continual efforts to vilify Dehlin (and me by association), you continue to miss the point.

You? How?

I have no idea how (if at all) you are associated with Mister Dehlin. If you want to take a bullet for him that's entirely up to you.

But in any event, I'm not trying to "vilify" anybody.

Unless you are admitting that Mister Dehlin's real agenda is vile?

Is that what you intended to say?

There are many Mormons who come to doubt the Church's truth claims, and not ALL of them were influenced by Mormon Stories.

And there are many people who are killed in car accidents, and not ALL of them take place on the Auckland Motorway. Your point?

And to counter that FACT, the review (and several people on this board) point to supposed deficiencies in Dehlin's character.

Umm, not quite.

To counter the influence Mister Dehlin is trying to generate for his so-called "Mormon Stories" project, the review points out how reality does not match the marketing hype.

To which I simply ask, "So what?" I could learn that Dehlin eats live babies at every meal, but that would not convince me, of say, the historicity of the BoM. If Mormon lives are being "ruined" by false information, the answer isn't to supply them with salacious details about the lives of the Church's critics. The answer is to supply them with the TRUTH.

Much as you'd like to brush aside criticism of your hero's agenda as mere "salacious details," the TRUTH is that the review is relevant to his claims.

I confess that the FAIR and FARMS sites are great resources for this purpose. I simply object to those times when they decide to attack the messenger instead of the message. I find it most objectionable because it seems to assume a level of immaturity on the part of the reader. "Don't believe him. He's a poopy head!"

Yeah, that really sounds like the Smith review.

That is, it sounds like someone who hasn't bothered to actually read the Smith review letting their imagination run free, unfettered by anything as inconvenient as facts.

A rational and intelligent person doesn't judge the relative merits of a historian's claims on a podcast on the basis of, say, whether the podcast HOST is honest in answering temple recommend questions. Yet, this is one of the things that the "review" delved into. Really? If Dehlin was sleeping with his bishop's wife (and his bishop), how would that affect the reliability of the podcast guest who claimed, say, that JS had a history of sexual indiscretions. Not one iota! The real issues are in the reliability of the data and the proper inferences to be drawn from such data.

And if the review was about what one historian had said in one interview, that might have merit.

But the review is looking at the so-called "Mormon Stories" project as a whole.

I can understand why that might cause consternation in some quarters, but it's an entirely legitimate subject of enquiry.

In spots the review does this, but it spends far too much time focused on Dehlin's character (as opposed to the epistemology of his guests).

No. It does not.

It examines how Mister Dehlin markets himself and his project to an LDS audience, and how reality matches up with the hype.

And the more I read of it, the more I can see why Mister Dehlin was in such a panic to suppress it.

Interestingly, there was an episode of Momon Stories in which an apologist came on to refute claims of JS's sexual indiscretions that had been claimed by a previous guest. The apologist went through the data step by step, differentiating between first person contemporaneous accounts and less reliable data and pointing to different conclusions to be drawn from the data. The apologist did not pull out sporadic and random statements from the critic's past but simply dealt with the issue at hand. He was very convincing.

Good for him.

And that's just the right approach for that kind of problem.

But the review deals with a different problem: namely, Mister Dehlin's ongoing project of apostate proselytizing among the Latter-day Saints.

In this thread, we've seen some with this approach. They gave reasoned arguments for why the worthiness interview process should remain unchanged. However, others felt it was enough to simply express their disdain for Dehlin. "He's at it again, causing trouble and glorifying himself in the process." As if true, it would have ANY bearing on whether our current worthiness bishop interview process places children (and bishops) at risk. Should we subject our kids to possible abuse to show Dehlin who's boss? Or should we discuss the merits of the proposal itself?

In case you hadn't noticed, the subject of the thread is, "John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews."

The fact that Mister Dehlin has a history of trying to create causes célèbres on which to promote his own agenda -- a practice of other demagogues before him -- is therefore entirely relevant to the topic.

I know you'd like us all to "Take no notice of that man behind the curtain!"

But I'm afraid it's not going to happen.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

In this thread, we've seen some with this approach. They gave reasoned arguments for why the worthiness interview process should remain unchanged. However, others felt it was enough to simply express their disdain for Dehlin. "He's at it again, causing trouble and glorifying himself in the process." As if true, it would have ANY bearing on whether our current worthiness bishop interview process places children (and bishops) at risk. Should we subject our kids to possible abuse to show Dehlin who's boss? Or should we discuss the merits of the proposal itself?

 

I don't consider the simple fact that a proposal has been made a good reason to discuss it. When the source of said proposal is vehemently opposed to most of what I hold dear I consider that ample reason to dismiss said proposal even more quickly.

 

I don't want Dehlin influencing church policy. I don't care if this is a "stopped clock being right twice a day" situation. Especially since God is a perfectly accurate clock and is more then capable of influencing policy as needed.

 

Alma did not keep Korihor around on the off-chance he might have a halfway decent idea at some point. Peter did not consult with Simon Magus for the same reason. I will go and do likewise.

[mormonnewb]

I don't consider the simple fact that a proposal has been made a good reason to discuss it. When the source of said proposal is vehemently opposed to most of what I hold dear I consider that ample reason to dismiss said proposal even more quickly.

 

I don't want Dehlin influencing church policy. I don't care if this is a "stopped clock being right twice a day" situation. Especially since God is a perfectly accurate clock and is more then capable of influencing policy as needed.

 

Alma did not keep Korihor around on the off-chance he might have a halfway decent idea at some point. Peter did not consult with Simon Magus for the same reason. I will go and do likewise.

Dehlin is opposed to most of what you hold dear? Why? Because he doubts the Church's truth claims? Or is it because he expresses doubts about Church policies? In that case, 99.9% of all Christians are opposed to "most of what you hold dear." So do you simply dismiss anyone who is outside of the camp?

[The Nehor]

Dehlin is opposed to most of what you hold dear? Why? Because he doubts the Church's truth claims?

 

Yes, and more importantly that he actively encourages doubt in others.

 

 

 In that case, 99.9% of all Christians are opposed to "most of what you hold dear."

 

Yes, quite sad.

 

 

So do you simply dismiss anyone who is outside of the camp?

 

Not everyone. Dehlin though? Yes.

[Pahoran]

Dehlin is opposed to most of what you hold dear? Why? Because he doubts the Church's truth claims? Or is it because he expresses doubts about Church policies? In that case, 99.9% of all Christians are opposed to "most of what you hold dear."

To an extent, yes.

But then again, 99.9% of all Christians don't market themselves to the Saints as an alternative voice to the prophets and apostles.

So do you simply dismiss anyone who is outside of the camp?

The problem is not that Mister Dehlin is "outside of the camp." The problem is his ongoing attempts to infiltrate the camp.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

Dehlin is opposed to most of what you hold dear? Why? Because he doubts the Church's truth claims? Or is it because he expresses doubts about Church policies? In that case, 99.9% of all Christians are opposed to "most of what you hold dear." So do you simply dismiss anyone who is outside of the camp?

No church can survive if the majority of its members are opposed to its policies. If 90 percent of the members doubt the truth claims, how can a church survive. And if only one member attempts to have others doubt the truth claims, is this good for the church? The bible cautions the early church to be of one mind quite often. Why? Because it is important for the church. Division can be destructive. And it seems that john has led people away when he was actively opposing the church. How to get these people back in the church now that john is back in the fold as a contrarian?

[why me]

The problem is not that Mister Dehlin is "outside of the camp." The problem is his ongoing attempts to infiltrate the camp.

Regards,

Pahoran

Amazingly, Mormonnewbie just doesn't get it. I think that he likes to disagree just for the heck of it. It may seem that john can be back in church to fulfill a new mission but he would not be alone in this mission. Much better to attempt change as a member than as an outsider. We see this with other members who formed organizations challenging the way the church is organized etc.

Edited May 6, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

Amazingly, Mormonnewbie just doesn't get it. I think that he likes to disagree just for the heck of it. It may seem that john can be back in church to fulfill a new mission but he would not be alone in this mission. Much better to attempt change as a member than as an outsider. We see this with other members who formed organizations challenging the way the church is organized etc.

There is a contrarian streak in me for sure but if I were just picking a position to argue for the heck of it, I would argue against Dehlin. It's so much easier to focus my snark on a "public figure" than to flail away at anonymous screen names on a message board.

However, in this case, to attack Dehlin would be to attack myself. I too have doubts and I vacillate in my confidence in Church leaders, teachings and practices. If there is no place for the likes of Dehlin in our Church, then there is no place for me ... or Christ.

In the garden, Christ did something that wasn't characteristically LDS -- he question the necessity of the crucifixion. He said, "Father, are you SURE that this is absolutely necessary? Because if at all possible, I'd like to avoid this impending horror." He explicitly agreed to do as He was told, but in essence, He asked HF to "double check his math" to make sure that it was absolutely necessary.

Interestingly, in our modern day, when, say, a group of women ask the Brethren to "double check their math" on the priesthood ban, they are seen as "troublemakers." "How dare you question how HF runs His Church?" Why not? Christ had the nerve to question the specifics of the atonement.

So perhaps we should feel free to question our EARTHLY LEADERS. At least, Brigham Young thought we should:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are being led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders if they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus Christ that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the way the Lord dictates or not.”

Quoted by Elder Harold B. Lee of the Quorum of the Twelve in Teachings of the Living Prophets, p. 47; Conference Report, Oct. 1950, pp. 129-130.

[Calm]

I can't remember if this has been posted before or not but it seems appropriate as it has some points that are worth considering:

http://www.millennialstar.org/john-dehlins-comprehensive-list-of-reasons-he-doesnt-believe-in-the-lds-church/

"Removing that hurt is terribly difficult because to try to do so is really just to advance a new type of ideology with its own potential hurts. So you not only have to eliminate some hurts that currently exist through use of your new ideology, you also have to introduce fewer new hurts than you stopped. As far as I can see, John doesn’t even understand that this is the case and largely just blames the Church when he introduces new hurts based on assumptions such as “it wouldn’t have happened had the Church been more transparent” or the like. So there is serious potential that John does more harm than good and just doesn’t realize it because he’s rather humanly shifting the responsibility elsewhere in his mind or is avoiding situations where he might find out the true consequences of what he’s doing...

Put simply, if John is helping people stay in the Church but they do so with a desire to reduce replication of belief (e.g. they are against missionary work, want to push the Church towards not proselytizing other religions, or maybe just make the Church less compeling because literal believe turns out to be more compeling than non-literal belief) then John truly is at odds with the current purpose of the Church and is in competition with it — regardless of whether or not he is keeping people in the church. This is because the church is the means, not the ends."

Edited May 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

There is a contrarian streak in me for sure but if I were just picking a position to argue for the heck of it, I would argue against Dehlin. It's so much easier to focus my snark on a "public figure" than to flail away at anonymous screen names on a message board.

However, in this case, to attack Dehlin would be to attack myself. I too have doubts and I vacillate in my confidence in Church leaders, teachings and practices. If there is no place for the likes of Dehlin in our Church, then there is no place for me ... or Christ.

The church began to be organized after the death of Christ. And Paul was writing letters to the churches warning them to be of one mind. And as we know there was quite some disagreement between Paul, James and Peter which was not good for the church. My point is that at times one can also be positive about the church too. Something that john seems to be shy of mentioning. With a negative it is good to see a positive but if someone is constantly trashing the lds church to get followers to go along with them, well, I can't agree with that.

Edited May 6, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I can't remember if this has been posted before or not but it seems appropriate as it has some points that are worth considering:

http://www.millennialstar.org/john-dehlins-comprehensive-list-of-reasons-he-doesnt-believe-in-the-lds-church/

"Removing that hurt is terribly difficult because to try to do so is really just to advance a new type of ideology with its own potential hurts. So you not only have to eliminate some hurts that currently exist through use of your new ideology, you also have to introduce fewer new hurts than you stopped. As far as I can see, John doesn’t even understand that this is the case and largely just blames the Church when he introduces new hurts based on assumptions such as “it wouldn’t have happened had the Church been more transparent” or the like. So there is serious potential that John does more harm than good and just doesn’t realize it because he’s rather humanly shifting the responsibility elsewhere in his mind or is avoiding situations where he might find out the true consequences of what he’s doing...

Put simply, if John is helping people stay in the Church but they do so with a desire to reduce replication of belief (e.g. they are against missionary work, want to push the Church towards not proselytizing other religions, or maybe just make the Church less compeling because literal believe turns out to be more compeling than non-literal belief) then John truly is at odds with the current purpose of the Church and is in competition with it — regardless of whether or not he is keeping people in the church. This is because the church is the means, not the ends."

 

I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Nielson's ultimate conclusion, but I do concede that he has a point.  Certainly, a Church must be more than just a tribe -- a collection of people with similar backgrounds and histories.  As a result, the attempt to expand the tent of Mormonism to include persons of all beliefs (or no belief) is misguided.  However, the question is how much orthodoxy should be required?  In addition to believing in the atonement and the restoration, must every member of the church also have a firm testimony about, say, patriarchal blessings, the Three Nephites, Cain/Bigfoot, etc.?  I suspect that the question of "how much Mormonism is enough Mormonism" is something that reasonable people (and even unreasonable people like me) could disagree about.

 

Just as an aside, I really respect the way that Mr. Nielson lays out his argument.  Even though, he ultimately concludes that Dehlin is doing more harm than good, he gives Dehlin the benefit of the doubt at every turn.  He assumes, time and again, that Dehlin's desire to help Mormons is sincere; just sincerely wrong.  I haven't quite mastered (or even been introduced) to this style of argumentation, but I freely admit that it can be extremely persuasive.

[mormonnewb]

The church began to be organized after the death of Christ. And Paul was writing letters to the churches warning them to be of one mind. And as we know there was quite some disagreement between Paul, James and Peter which was not good for the church. My point is that at times one can also be positive about the church too. Something that john seems to be shy of mentioning. With a negative it is good to see a positive but if someone is constantly trashing the lds church to get followers to go along with them, well, I can't agree with that.

 

I will throw you this bone: I've noticed that the podcast has been increasingly hostile to the Church over the last several months.  In the past, I really think Dehlin made a conscious effort to inject something positive about the Church into most (if not all) episodes.  In fact, he would frequently say something like, "This is all coming off as way too negative, let's take a step back and acknowledge that the Church has pure motives for [whatever policy/doctrine that was being debated/explored/criticized] ..."  I've noticed less of this balancing in recent months, but I know that my own attitude towards the Church waxes and wanes (sometimes within a single thread on this board).  And if I was constantly demonized as an enemy to my very own community, I suspect that I'd be doing a lot more waning than waxing.

[Calm]

"I would love some advice — especially from those who are (or are willing to become) financial supporters of Mormon Stories. Being active and in full fellowship with the church (i.e., temple recommend holding, attending meetings weekly, paying tithing, holding a calling, etc.) is not likely going to work for me (as I’ve mentioned before — I’m not comfortable supporting the church financially, and they have sent me the message that they don’t want me as a vocal semi-believer).But leaving the church completely has the potential to negatively impact the reach of Mormon Stories podcast, since possibly some TBMs are willing to listen to Mormon Stories because I remain active (I get this feedback from time to time). In essence, active church participation isn’t working for me, but I don’t want to harm the good that Mormon Stories can do. For those of you who are genuine supporters of Mormon Stories…what should I do? I’d love your perspective here…again…especially from those who are financial supporters (and /or have skin in the game regarding the future of Mormon Stories) (source)"

http://www.millennialstar.org/what-john-dehlin-really-thinks/

This quote is a demonstration of one of the big reasons that Greg Smith decided to do his paper as Dehlin had made it clear many times he view his active, temple recommend holding status as an essential part of his mission to reach out LDS...a quite sensible view, you want to be seen as "one of you" to draw greater attention and respect. Since this was part and is currently part of Dehlin's toolbox, it seems appropriate to me to make it clear what that phrase leads most people to expect, how Dehlin portrayed his life as such and to point out any variation between those things and how he and others close to him described his actual behaviours. People were willing to listen if they believed he was active, etc; he knew that and made use of it and is trying to figure out how to make use of it if possible now he can't claim it having shared his displeasure at his SP not allowing him a TR due to his placing conditions on his tithing staying in the Stake and him being informed at least where it went.

Edited May 6, 2014 by calmoriah