John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[Storm Rider]

"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.

 

His own words are a condemnation of consciously being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Why would anyone value his perspective on anything?  He values his membership only in terms of his employment and little else.  This fellow is a Tanner, but without the integrity of leaving the Church. 

[mormonnewb]

"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.

 

I offer no defense for deception.  Hopefully, this post on his FB page was made at a weak moment and he has decided to be upfront about his church status.

 

I do find it interesting that TBMs will only listen to Mormon Stories if the host is an active Mormon.  I recently took an iTunes course on NT Literary Criticism that was taught by a gay atheist.  He didn't need to share my abiding belief in Christ's atonement to be able to provide me with valuable insight into the cultural norms of 1st century Palestine.  In fact, I found his somewhat irreverent treatment of the subject matter kept my attention (between games of Candy Crush Saga).  And surprisingly, my testimony of Christ was strengthened because an "objective" reading of the Biblical text  confirmed for me the truth of the Christ's Gospel.

 

Likewise, one of my favorite commentators on race in America is a WHITE guy.  Interestingly, I find his commentary most compelling because he has the freedom to castigate "the man" -- President Obama.  Many black social critics simply can not bring themselves to say anything negative about the one of "our own."  In the same way, a "faithful Mormon" would be loathe to challenge existing church practices or dogma.

 

So is this the TBM approach to understanding the Gospel -- Fox News?  Or MSNBC for that matter?  Do we simply listen to those voices that parrot back what we've already been told to believe?  How is this supposed to help us reach the fullness of the Gospel if no TBM (from whom we pick our leaders) is ever exposed to seemingly radical ideas?  Perhaps, that explains why we were 15 years late in getting the 1978 revelation -- it took that long for the idea to filter through the ranks of us marginal members

 

I don't think that it's a coincidence that JS grew up in the midst of a diverse religious revival.  As country preachers had outstripped the reach of their established churches, JS was exposed to unorthodox theologies, including restoration theology.  In a sense, JS grew up in the midst of a Mormon Stories lifecast.  He was exposed to several "wrong" churches.  I suspect that the divergent (and even discordant) views all around him made it easier for him to even fathom the beginning of a new dispensation because his eyes had been opened to new possibilities.  Would he have been able to "turn on a dime" like that if he had been heavily inculcated into, say, Roman Catholic orthodoxy?  I doubt it.

[Pahoran]

I do find it interesting that TBMs will only listen to Mormon Stories if the host is an active Mormon.

I don't agree.

Actually I think those you label with the popular pejorative "TBM" are more concerned that "Mormon Stories" is being run by someone who blows hot and cold.

It's him not being up-front about where he is really coming from and what he is really out to achieve that rings alarm bells.

Regards,

Pahoran

[readstoomuch]

Dehlin increasingly mocks beliefs and policy. His rhetoric has crossed the line. MormonStories is like sharkfest and I pray that people don't get started with him. I wish he was what he started out saying he was for the Church. He is not helpful any more. Very few find an active path in the church from his influence.

[why me]

I do find it interesting that TBMs will only listen to Mormon Stories if the host is an active Mormon.

I can't say that this is true4. But it does give him credibility that he is still in the church. However, this can also make him a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I think that this is the point with some people on this thread. He can be seen as a person who is in it to promote himself.

[why me]

Dehlin increasingly mocks beliefs and policy. His rhetoric has crossed the line. MormonStories is like sharkfest and I pray that people don't get started with him. I wish he was what he started out saying he was for the Church. He is not helpful any more. Very few find an active path in the church from his influence.

And I do believe that this was the reason for the Smith piece and why lds apologists were finding Dehlin hard to take.

[Tacenda]

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."

Honestly, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but they should just start another church, what's one more break off? I read not too long ago, they were getting together as if it were church, with their families, and thought they would break off then. It wasn't a Mormon stories group, much more recent, it may have fizzled out though. I saw John was on here the other day reading these topics having to do with him, was hoping he'd speak up. Someone on here mentioned he's a wolf in sheep's clothing and pretends to be a believer, but he recently made a statement about his beliefs and it was very honestly put that he's struggling, almost to the point of leaving again. I hope he will speak up on here, but I don't blame him if he doesn't. Edited May 6, 2014 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

Wow! In an entire paragraph, you managed to avoid even ONE substantive criticism of Dehlin's actual proposal. Instead, it was all ad hominem all the time. And given how well the last Dehlin ad hominem fest turned out, I would have thought that the apologists would start taking a different tact. Silly me!

 

This kind of unwarranted dismissal through projection appears to be the coin of the Dehlinite realm. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

 Someone on here mentioned he's a wolf in sheep's clothing and pretends to be a believer, but he recently made a statement about his beliefs and it was very honestly put that he's struggling, almost to the point of leaving again. I hope he will speak up on here, but I don't blame him if he doesn't.

The problem is that when Joihn flip flops he does it publically because he is a public person. I think that there are quite a few exmos who no longer take him very seriously anymore because of all the flips and flops he did along the way. Eventually, one must make a decision; stay or not and go for it. However, I do think that john can't make up his mind. He likes the spotlight that he has at times and yet, he should just give it a rest and do some serious reflection about his own life

's direction.

[Pandorian]

I think parents SHOULD be allowed in those interviews. A 40 year old guy should NOT be alone in a room with a teenage girl, even if a counselor or ward clerk is in the next room. IT'S WRONG.

 

Actually to be honest, when I was interviewed by my Bishop, it was VERY uncomfortable. I was 12, and he asks if I masturbate..I am all like what's that? So I learned what it was from my Bishop. Had NO IDEA what the term was for it until then.

 

It is an indefensible practice and needs to stop. It opens up too much chance for liability problems for the Bishop and for the Church.

[Buzzard]

I think parents SHOULD be allowed in those interviews. A 40 year old guy should NOT be alone in a room with a teenage girl, even if a counselor or ward clerk is in the next room. IT'S WRONG.

 

Actually to be honest, when I was interviewed by my Bishop, it was VERY uncomfortable. I was 12, and he asks if I masturbate..I am all like what's that? So I learned what it was from my Bishop. Had NO IDEA what the term was for it until then.

 

It is an indefensible practice and needs to stop. It opens up too much chance for liability problems for the Bishop and for the Church.

I have seen the church sued for many things, but never for this. Perhaps you have information I don't? 

There might be a training opportunity here, but the bishop is called a "Common judge in Israel" for a reason. If Bishops behave inappropriately, we have recourse to those above him. But having parents or even worse, a RS president, present during worthiness interviews is an even worse idea. 

My daughter is now an adult. She was interviewed many times as a youth by her bishop and his counselors, and never was given any reason to be offended by the questioning. 

[USU78]

I think parents SHOULD be allowed in those interviews. A 40 year old guy should NOT be alone in a room with a teenage girl, even if a counselor or ward clerk is in the next room. IT'S WRONG.

 

Actually to be honest, when I was interviewed by my Bishop, it was VERY uncomfortable. I was 12, and he asks if I masturbate..I am all like what's that? So I learned what it was from my Bishop. Had NO IDEA what the term was for it until then.

 

It is an indefensible practice and needs to stop. It opens up too much chance for liability problems for the Bishop and for the Church.

 

You have not thought this through.

 

It was a hard-earned right to have the pleasure of speaking with one's clergyman without the State being able to intrude into your relationship by compelling your clergyman to disclose what you said against your will.  Add a parent/YW leader or teacher/anybody else to the meeting and you have no right to keep your priest/penitent privilege intact.  Whether you knew it, you are advocating for destroying the child's right to privacy.

 

Moreover, the child, even a "tweener" or teen child, has the right to be treated with respect and his autonomy cherished.  Adding babysitters to his private meetings with his chosen clergyman is infantilizing him.  He is entitled, especially once he leaves Primary, to the same respect that an "of age" adult is:  "Today I am a man," says the Bar Mitzvah boy.  Treat him like one.

[mormonnewb]

You have not thought this through.

 

It was a hard-earned right to have the pleasure of speaking with one's clergyman without the State being able to intrude into your relationship by compelling your clergyman to disclose what you said against your will.  Add a parent/YW leader or teacher/anybody else to the meeting and you have no right to keep your priest/penitent privilege intact.  Whether you knew it, you are advocating for destroying the child's right to privacy.

 

Moreover, the child, even a "tweener" or teen child, has the right to be treated with respect and his autonomy cherished.  Adding babysitters to his private meetings with his chosen clergyman is infantilizing him.  He is entitled, especially once he leaves Primary, to the same respect that an "of age" adult is:  "Today I am a man," says the Bar Mitzvah boy.  Treat him like one.

 

So the reason that we need adult men speaking to children about M in private is so that we can preserve the CHILD'S privilege against self-incrimination at trial?  Which trials are you referring to -- the Salem Witch Trials?

 

In 99% of cases, the child's confession does not need to be privileged for legal purposes.  And in those tragic cases (such as a child confessing to molesting a younger sibling), I THINK Church policy (and local law) might require the bishop to disregard the privilege and contact law enforcement.

 

Finally, the presence of a third-party does not automatically obviate the priest-penitent privilege.  For instance, if the bishop and his counselor are present, then it's the functional equivalent of confessing to two priests or rabbis.  And, in some cases, the presence of a parent might be okay as well.  There was a 2011 case in Arizona in which the privilege held despite the presence of the wife at the confession.

 

http://www.churchlawandtax.com/cltr/2011/march-april/spouses-presence-may-not-nullify-clergy-penitent-privilege.html

[Storm Rider]

I think parents SHOULD be allowed in those interviews. A 40 year old guy should NOT be alone in a room with a teenage girl, even if a counselor or ward clerk is in the next room. IT'S WRONG.

 

Actually to be honest, when I was interviewed by my Bishop, it was VERY uncomfortable. I was 12, and he asks if I masturbate..I am all like what's that? So I learned what it was from my Bishop. Had NO IDEA what the term was for it until then.

 

It is an indefensible practice and needs to stop. It opens up too much chance for liability problems for the Bishop and for the Church.

 

I obviously missed out on a great deal in my youth.  It seems like people are coming out of the woodwork because, God forbid, a spiritual leader asked them if they masturbated.  It must have been incredibly shocking because we live in such a puritanical society where sexuality is never talked about, seen, advertised, or even referred to in any form of discourse; never in a magazine, a book, on television, or on billboards.  

 

How did I miss these questions?  How did my friends miss these questions in interviews or at least never mention them?  Where the bloody heck was I when all of this abuse was going on in the LDS world?

 

Here is what I think - BALDERDASH. I call Balderdash on the majority of these shocking questions on topics that never a single person, particularly a young person, has ever heard about.  What I am getting at is SO WHAT?!?  Young people are exposed to so much worse in the world that I have a real problem believing that it is an issue.  I don't believe this is a question that everyone hears and if it is, so what.  It is just not that big of a deal.  I don't know of any prolonged episodes of neurosis is affecting Mormon youth because their bishop discussed sexuality with them.  

 

It is like I landed in a land of prudes and no one has ever heard about sex.  What is the issue?  Some bloke asks you about sexuality and that is supposed to destroy your life?  Put the situation in perspective!  It is wrong for a spiritual leader to talk to a girl or a boy?  Are you serious?  You think it is better that another teenager talks about instead?  Where are your parents and why aren't they talking about human sexuality with their children?  These should be common topics in the home that are discussed in frankness and openly. 

 

Lastly, and again, I don't believe in today's world a bishop asks such direct questions unless lead there by the individual. Probing questions are not acceptable and bishops are counseled against them. However, in the event they are asked it remains a valid topic.  This is more about people creating boogeymen rather than a real problem.  Women are supposed to be every bit as strong and resilent as men.....but we must treat them as fragile flowers or they will wilt?  Oh, don't be so condescending to girls or women.  The more I read this drivel the more angrier I become.  It is as if you want me to believe sex is an unheard of topic and somehow a bishop destroys the emotional health of youth should he ever ask about sexuality.  Please just get down off that high horse and grow up. 

 

Okay, soapbox today has been used; carry on. 

[Calm]

I know I was taught about masturbation in sex ed in school and it had to be before I was 12 given that was when we moved (I dont remember the specific time or topic, but I do remember the setting of watching those sex ed videos) so this would have been 1970 or before.

However, perhaps there were sex ed class that didn't teach it? Or maybe those who didn't hear about it were pulled out of class and manage to be of a peer group that were too uncomfortable to talk about it afterward.

[Yirgacheffe]

I know I was taught about masturbation in sex ed in school and it had to be before I was 12 given that was when we moved (I dont remember the specific time or topic, but I do remember the setting of watching those sex ed videos) so this would have been 1970 or before.

However, perhaps there were sex ed class that didn't teach it? Or maybe those who didn't hear about it were pulled out of class and manage to be of a peer group that were too uncomfortable to talk about it afterward.

Our sex ed classes never mentioned masturbation when I was in school in the early eighty's.

[Tacenda]

Our sex ed classes never mentioned masturbation when I was in school in the early eighty's.

Mine either.

[Storm Rider]

I don't recall being taught about masturbation in school; could have, but no memory.  However, I do remember learning about it crude terms from a friends older brother when I was in the 7th grade. I don't remember that it scarred me to any degree. I also remember going home and asking my mom and dad about at the dinner table when I was asked how the day went. They explained what it was in more delicate language and then talked about why they felt it was not a proper choice to make because it was "abusing God's gift to be shared between a husband and wife".  

 

I remain stunned that people here really think this is a significant topic or a taboo. It takes all kinds, but this is just plain weird. 

[rodheadlee]

I think parents SHOULD be allowed in those interviews. A 40 year old guy should NOT be alone in a room with a teenage girl, even if a counselor or ward clerk is in the next room. IT'S WRONG.

 

Actually to be honest, when I was interviewed by my Bishop, it was VERY uncomfortable. I was 12, and he asks if I masturbate..I am all like what's that? So I learned what it was from my Bishop. Had NO IDEA what the term was for it until then.

 

It is an indefensible practice and needs to stop. It opens up too much chance for liability problems for the Bishop and for the Church.

So yeah, you think Moses had to worry about being accused as a child molester? Or NOMs? or MINOs? You wanna know what God thinks of wasting your seed? you only need to read Genesis38:9

[Yirgacheffe]

I remain stunned that people here really think this is a significant topic or a taboo. It takes all kinds, but this is just plain weird.

Most people I know probably wouldn't find masturbation significant at all, for the most part they just don't see it as a problem. What they would object to is a grown man discussing it with their children and asking any pointed questions or explaining any sexual activity. Hands down the Catholic sex abuse scandal has pretty much convinced everyone I know that a grown man discussing any sexual topic behind closed doors with a child is unacceptable and could very well be a form of grooming.

[why me]

Most people I know probably wouldn't find masturbation significant at all, for the most part they just don't see it as a problem. What they would object to is a grown man discussing it with their children and asking any pointed questions or explaining any sexual activity. Hands down the Catholic sex abuse scandal has pretty much convinced everyone I know that a grown man discussing any sexual topic behind closed doors with a child is unacceptable and could very well be a form of grooming.

I would think that it would depend on the age. For example, if you ask a question: should a clergyman talk about masturbation to a child? Most would say no because their image of a child is between 4 to 11. Very few people view a teenager as a child. The church considers them young women and young men. Also, I think that bishops in the lds church should only ask a very general question these days. A question such as: Have you followed the law of chasity? And if asked what is it? Just say: sexual purity, you haven't had sexual relations or masturbated. And if the teenager says that they haven't. the bishop must take it from there.

 

I see nothing improper about this. And most likely this is what happens. However, if the bishop asks more personal questions about how the teen masturbates etc, this will be over the top. I have no idea why people think that bishops would be perverts. As I said before, it is much better for a parent to have a talk with their teenager before their teenager goes into the bishop and go over with them what questions may be improper or what questions may not be improper.

 

And this would be the same with a child. But we still need to remember that the talk can also be a more general talk about adults and being alone with them and what should be avoided.

[why me]

We need to remember that many teens have watched porn at an early age. And porn watching is shared with their friends. They can be a rather savvy group of people these days. And of course a part of being sexually pure would be to obstain from porn. Now I am not sure how many teens would want their parents present when they tell their biship that they watch porn. I know that I wouldn't.

[Storm Rider]

Most people I know probably wouldn't find masturbation significant at all, for the most part they just don't see it as a problem. What they would object to is a grown man discussing it with their children and asking any pointed questions or explaining any sexual activity. Hands down the Catholic sex abuse scandal has pretty much convinced everyone I know that a grown man discussing any sexual topic behind closed doors with a child is unacceptable and could very well be a form of grooming.

 

Context is everything. It is my understanding that LDS priesthood leaders do not asking probing questions - that is one of the reasons I have a jaundiced eye on these stores except for those from 30 years ago. The question is "are you morally worthy?"  It is not acceptable for an LDS priesthood leader to ask probing questions of a sexual nature UNLESS the individual feels a sense of guilt and is seeking repentance. In that situation sexual sins may come up, but they come in as a result of the individual's feelings and sense of guilt.  The purpose of the conversation is to assist the individual to gain forgiveness and feel that they have been forgiven and to not repeat the sin.  

 

I object that a man is incapable of discussing this topic with an individual.  Abuse does not belong to males; it belongs to abusers regardless of gender.  If the context of the conversation is forgiveness, repentance, holiness, and freedom from guilt then there is not a problem and should not be viewed as a problem.

 

The role of other adults particularly parents, is to have additional, appropriate conversations with the individual.  If parents are not having these types of conversations then they need to look in the mirror and understand that person they see is the only one at fault.  It is not the fault of a bishop, stake president, or Catholic priest. 

[Stargazer]

Nevermind.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Stargazer

[Calm]

Mine either.

So they got more uptight as the years went on...maybe due to court cases? Too be clear, we were taught the definition of it, not given any how to details. Pretty much all I knew was it existed. It is possible the guys were taught something more explicit or could put two and two together.