John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[why me]

 

rockpond, on 07 May 2014 - 9:03 PM, said:

 

 

 

Yep to paraphrase:  I really like the Church if they would only change all those things I don't agree with.

 

Sounds like good solid support to me.

I think that this was one of the points of the interview. I see john more as a helper for people who are on the way out...to make their journey easier and not as someone who attempts to build their testimonies.

[mormonnewb]

It wasn't a "hit piece." That is boilerplate Dehlinite propaganda, and is, as everyone who has actually read the review knows, false. It was a review of Mister Dehlin's so-called "Mormon Stories" project.

And it wasn't "compiled" by any "website." It was written by an LDS scholar.

Nor was it "leaked" by any "website." It was published on Interpreter.

Regards,

Pahoran

You really built your apologist cred with that reply. You made three separate points -- NONE of which address the real point I was making. You should really think about "going pro."

Aside from the insignificant details, the "review" was written by persons in some way associated with the Maxwell Institute and later published on the web (by someone). It accuses Dehlin of being intellectually sloppy and dishonest. So why in the world would he be encouraging people to read other material written by his detractors?

Edited May 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[why me]

You really built your apologist cred with that reply. You made three separate points -- NONE of which address the real point I was making. You should really think about "going pro."

Aside from the insignificant details, the "review" was written by persons in some way associated with the Maxwell Institute and later published on the web (by someone). It accuses Dehlin of being intellectually sloppy and dishonest. So why in the world would he be encouraging people to read other material written by his detractors?

There is nothing wrong with critiquing someone in an academic way. There is nothing wrong in challenging another person's point of view and that person's intent. If one reads the past intellectuals of the past, they were always taking their peers to task. Marx is a great example of this. However, the problem comes when one attempts to stifle different points of view by attempting to not have such contrary points of view published.

[rockpond]

I think that this was one of the points of the interview. I see john more as a helper for people who are on the way out...to make their journey easier and not as someone who attempts to build their testimonies.

Just last month he did a produced a two hour interview with active member Brad Kramer. The topic was on frameworks that allow people to remain faithful members of the church even when they have unresolved doubts, questions, or concerns.

Did anyone else here publish such an interview to help active members remain in the church?

<crickets>

That's what I thought.

Edited May 8, 2014 by rockpond

[Pahoran]

You really built your apologist cred with that reply. You made three separate points -- NONE of which address the real point I was making. You should really think about "going pro."

 

Sorry, but if I wanted to "go pro," I'd have to become a detractor.  You see, there are no professional defenders of the Church, although there are professional detractors.

 

So you're saying that the "hit piece" nonsense, the "compiled by a website" Dreck and the "leaked" bulldust were all irrelevant -- but you typed them anyway?

 

You really built your Dehlinite apologist cred with that one.  You should really think about "going pro."

 

Aside from the insignificant details, the "review" was written by persons in some way associated with the Maxwell Institute and later published on the web (by someone). It accuses Dehlin of being intellectually sloppy and dishonest. So why in the world would he be encouraging people to read other material written by his detractors?

 

"In some way associated" is nicely vague, isn't it?  Dr Smith has published with the MI in the past.  Is that "associated?"

 

But the vast bulk of what the MI has published has nothing to do with Mister Dehlin.  It is, however, materially relevant to the historical issues he assiduously promotes, and over which he actively fosters unbelief.

 

And while his outsized ego is one (very slender) reason why he wouldn't want to mention the MI to people -- after all, the MI suppressed the review that so enraged him -- a more compelling explanation is that he doesn't want to expose his prospects to information that might strengthen their belief.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

There is nothing wrong with critiquing someone in an academic way. There is nothing wrong in challenging another person's point of view and that person's intent. If one reads the past intellectuals of the past, they were always taking their peers to task. Marx is a great example of this. However, the problem comes when one attempts to stifle different points of view by attempting to not have such contrary points of view published.

So Marx went around encouraging people to read his critics in his phonograph interviews?

[rockpond]

Well, this is the point. He doesn't actually believe in the church anymore and so for him it has become a church of men. Thus, it is perfectly okay to challenge the bunch of men. The witnesses are a great faith promoter. What gets lost in John's message is that it is not just about Joseph Smith but also about 11 men and one woman who saw the plates and kept to the testimony of it. That is a big plus for the church and for the book that john doesn't believe in.

You're right... As far as I am aware, he no longer believes in many (or all) of the truth claims of the church. And he was on a radio program discussin New Order Mormonism. Were you expecting him to deliver something akin to a general conference talk?

[rockpond]

My point was simple. If john wishes people to remain mormon, then he would need to mention the sites that may help them to remain mormon. The only site that he mentioned was his own. Plus, he recommended that active members should go to the recovery site and read about all the pain. John admitted that he didn'

t have a testimony of the church. And this would clarify his reasons for not recommending more pro-lds sites.

The NOM site and Mormon Stories helped me stay in the church during a very difficult faith crisis in my life.

This site would not have helped me. There is very little compassion or sympathy on these boards for those with unorthodox views.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then the analogy to choosing your pediatrician fails.

It doesn't fail. It's just that it doesn't compare in each and every respect. No analogy does.

 

In the Church of Jesus Christ, one doesn't ordinarily pick and choose his own bishop other than, perhaps, by moving into a specific ward's boundaries.

 

This is because theoretically, any bishop in the Church is chosen by God to do what a bishop does. Latter-day Saints trust God and they trust their bishops because of, well, what Bushman calls "the routinization of charisma" (see my prior post on that concept).

 

I heard Boyd K. Packer on one occasion say, "No one can do for you what your bishop can do." That is because a bishop holds keys given to him by God to function in a specific ecclesiastical role, including giving pastoral care to those who are assigned to his charge.

 

There would be chaos in the Kingdom if anyone were allowed to go bishop shopping, to coin a phrase. There could hardly be any meaningful shepherding in such a circumstance.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

You're right... As far as I am aware, he no longer believes in many (or all) of the truth claims of the church. And he was on a radio program discussin New Order Mormonism. Were you expecting him to deliver something akin to a general conference talk?

 

No, I don't think any of us were expecting him to say anything supportive of the Church, or of its truth claims; nor to refer any listeners to any sources that would be thus supportive.

 

But the point you are missing is that the reason we don't expect such things is that we don't accept his self-promotion.  Thus, no such expectation exists.  However, anyone who takes his claims at face value would hold such expectations.

 

That's the point, rockpond.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 9, 2014 by Pahoran

[Yirgacheffe]

It doesn't fail. It's just that it doesn't compare in each and every respect. No analogy does.

 

In the Church of Jesus Christ, one doesn't ordinarily pick and choose his own bishop other than, perhaps, by moving into a specific ward's boundaries.

 

This is because theoretically, any bishop in the Church is chosen by God to do what a bishop does. Latter-day Saints trust God and they trust their bishops because of, well, what Bushman calls "the routinization of charisma" (see my prior post on that concept).

 

I heard Boyd K. Packer on one occasion say, "No one can do for you what your bishop can do." That is because a bishop holds keys given to him by God to function in a specific ecclesiastical role, including giving pastoral care to those who are assigned to his charge.

 

There would be chaos in the Kingdom if anyone were allowed to go bishop shopping, to coin a phrase. There could hardly be any meaningful shepherding in such a circumstance.

They are assigned a bishop that is not exercising choice, even if you take into consideration recommendations of people you trust, similar to LDS trust in God, you still can choose a different doctor than the on recommended. You can choose a different doctor for every member of your family if that's what works best for you, and if you later find it doesn't work you can pick another. There is no choice in an LDS bishop so yes the analogy fails at it's base.

[rockpond]

No, I don't think any of us were expecting him to say anything supportive of the Church, or of its truth claims; nor to refer any listeners to any sources that would be thus supportive.

But the point you are missing is that the reason we don't expect such things is that we don't accept his self-promotion. Thus, no such expectation exists. However, anyone who takes his claims at face value would hold such expectations.

That's the point, rockpond.

Regards,

Pahoran

I honestly have no idea what point you are making. Anyone who knows Dehlin would not expect him to send people to this site nor to FAIR.

And I would agree... I've seen very little on these boards that would be helpful to members struggling through a faith crisis. I've been there myself and as I said, NOM and Mormon Stories helped me stay in the church as an active, believing member... Something this site couldn't possibly do with the current batch of "contributors".

[why me]

So Marx went around encouraging people to read his critics in his phonograph interviews?

He took his follow economics and critics to tasks in his works. Capital is one huge ruthless critique against capitalism and the economists who supported capitalism both past and present for his time. Not to mention his work The Holy Family, which had nothing to do with the holy family but with his distractors.

 

Here is a letter of Marx to Arnold Ruge about criticism.

 

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm

 

 

It is quite a good letter on being a critic and criticism.

 

In academic debate, criticism has much to play. It is not just being negative but also it is about a questioning process that may lead to a certain truth. And this was what Smith's piece was. His piece took dehlin to task for his work and actions. And in academia that is perfectly okay thing to do. John could have then countered the piece with his own criticism and counter points. But what happened? The attempt at suppression of someone's work by John because it was critical of his work with mormonstories. 

 

I saw no academic debate, unfortunately.

Edited May 9, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Just last month he did a produced a two hour interview with active member Brad Kramer. The topic was on frameworks that allow people to remain faithful members of the church even when they have unresolved doubts, questions, or concerns.

Did anyone else here publish such an interview to help active members remain in the church?

<crickets>

That's what I thought.

No crickets here.

 

And he has done this before. But what is his overall stress? In the radio interview he could have attempted to help those that leave with his own testimony. The problem was that he had no testimony just agnosticism. So, he would tend to lean on that side of the ship. And it is difficult to help any member when one takes the position of agnosticism.

 

I have no idea who or what john is anymorse. We,  who have been on the board for quite some time, have seen many changes in his stances and ideas because he publicizes all his sea currents and shifts of sand. Eventually he needs to find solid ground, regardless of what ground that it.

Edited May 9, 2014 by why me

[why me]

You're right... As far as I am aware, he no longer believes in many (or all) of the truth claims of the church. And he was on a radio program discussin New Order Mormonism. Were you expecting him to deliver something akin to a general conference talk?

Well, you see here is the problem. John came back into the church. Why? When he came back the buzz was whether he was going to be an active member or if he had some other reason. No one knew his intentions. Now we know. He doesn't believe in it but.....

 

 

The radio interview was also about how to help members cope with new information that they may get from the internet etc. This would have been a good opportunity to put in a plug to more active member oriented sites. Instead what we got were reference to the recovery site.

[why me]

They are assigned a bishop that is not exercising choice, even if you take into consideration recommendations of people you trust, similar to LDS trust in God, you still can choose a different doctor than the on recommended. You can choose a different doctor for every member of your family if that's what works best for you, and if you later find it doesn't work you can pick another. There is no choice in an LDS bishop so yes the analogy fails at it's base.

The bishop is responsible for his flock within his area. This flock can be both members or nonmembers. It is still his flock. So, the ward bishop is responsible for such interviews. Now, if one has a personal problem with the bishop, I do think that there are ways to get around it. One can talk to another bishop about any problem that one is having.

[Yirgacheffe]

The bishop is responsible for his flock within his area. This flock can be both members or nonmembers. It is still his flock. So, the ward bishop is responsible for such interviews. Now, if one has a personal problem with the bishop, I do think that there are ways to get around it. One can talk to another bishop about any problem that one is having.

So you are saying that LDS members can have interviews with any bishop they want, that does not seem to be what the person I was reply to said.  If members can pick the bishop who interviews them or their family members then it is like choosing a doctor.  Can LDS members freely choose who will interview them?

[Calm]

No, interviews for recommends etc. must be done by your assigned bishops. He was saying that if someone wanted to talk to someone else just to talk or counsel with, one could. At least that is how I understood it.

I do not think there are ways around it unless one is a student and has both a 'home ward' where one's family lives and the student ward one attends while at school. Even it being more convenient to attend another ward because of work or something (say you have to work on Sunday and there is a chapel across the street which would allow you to attend on a regular basis rather than intermittently) I haven't heard of memberships being transferred.

Edited May 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[why me]

No, interviews for recommends etc. must be done by your assigned bishops. He was saying that if someone wanted to talk to someone else just to talk or counsel with, one could. At least that is how I understood it.

 

Yes, that is what I was saying. One can talk to any bishop they please or to any person they please. But the official interviews happen with that person's ward bishop. But I also think that in exceptional cases, another bishop can do it.

[why me]

So you are saying that LDS members can have interviews with any bishop they want, that does not seem to be what the person I was reply to said.  If members can pick the bishop who interviews them or their family members then it is like choosing a doctor.  Can LDS members freely choose who will interview them?

I think that there are exceptions. For example, I may not want to confess a sexual sin to him if my partner was his sister. Or his mom etc. Or I may not want to confess to my bishop dad if I were masturbating. I may wish to choose someone else. I think that these are exceptional reasons.

Edited May 9, 2014 by why me

[cdowis]

So you are saying that LDS members can have interviews with any bishop they want, that does not seem to be what the person I was reply to said.  If members can pick the bishop who interviews them or their family members then it is like choosing a doctor.  Can LDS members freely choose who will interview them?

 

I disagree that you can "bishop shop", but you have doubts and need to find some to talk to --

starting witth home teachers, priesthood leaders.  The bishop has two counselors, the priesthood quorum leaders have counselors, informally you have the Sunday School teachers, Social Services counselors, etc.  I'm sure the bishop would expect others to take some of the counseling burden.

 

Even in the case of worthiness, it is possible to speak with someone in the stake presidency, who will, of course, eventually refer you to the bishop.  But if you are having an issue with the bishop's interview, it would be helpful to bring up those issues.  He can give you counsel on how to approach the bishop in such a specific situation.  

 

He may even have a chat with the bishop, or include those issues in a general training session for bishops.  But he is the judge in Israel.

Edited May 9, 2014 by cdowis

[Pahoran]

I honestly have no idea what point you are making. Anyone who knows Dehlin would not expect him to send people to this site nor to FAIR.

 

And I'm agreeing with you.  Anybody who knows him wouldn't expect him to send people anywhere that might strengthen their testimonies.

 

But anybody who knows him necessarily knows that his marketing hype isn't the real deal.

 

And I would agree... I've seen very little on these boards that would be helpful to members struggling through a faith crisis. I've been there myself and as I said, NOM and Mormon Stories helped me stay in the church as an active, believing member... Something this site couldn't possibly do with the current batch of "contributors".

 

Ah, the obligatory sneer of the self-righteous.

 

I don't recall that this site has been promoted as a place to send "members struggling through a faith crisis."  I certainly wouldn't send anyone here for that purpose.  This is not the right environment for such things.  There are too many naysayers, and there have been too many poseurs, to really allow that kind of discussion.

 

One of the most shopworn, hackneyed schticks that plays out here is the dyed-in-the-wool anti-Mormon who rocks up with a boilerplate cover story: They are an oh so faithful member with a couple of dozen callings under their belt, whose g-g-g-g-grandparents shoved a handcart all the way to the Valley-O, but who is now bothered with "just one little question."

 

And that "just one little question" quickly expands into a standard laundry list of anti-Mormon talking points.

 

So while it is easy, and lazily convenient, to blame the "contributors" for this state of affairs -- and while it is also very satisfying for you, because it lets you bask in your magnificent superiority -- it is not of our making.

 

Just so you know.

 

But there are other places Mister Dehlin could send people if he genuinely wanted to strengthen them.  The Maxwell Institute, which suppressed the review that he so bitterly resents, for one.  FAIR for another.  FAIR has a wiki that covers many of the standard anti-Mormon talking points that people may be confronted with.

 

So naturally, he recommends Grant Palmer instead.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 9, 2014 by Pahoran

[ERayR]

So you are saying that LDS members can have interviews with any bishop they want, that does not seem to be what the person I was reply to said.  If members can pick the bishop who interviews them or their family members then it is like choosing a doctor.  Can LDS members freely choose who will interview them?

 

Nope but if you have a problem with the Bishop you can go to the Stake President.

[rockpond]

Well, you see here is the problem. John came back into the church. Why? When he came back the buzz was whether he was going to be an active member or if he had some other reason. No one knew his intentions. Now we know. He doesn't believe in it but.....

 

 

The radio interview was also about how to help members cope with new information that they may get from the internet etc. This would have been a good opportunity to put in a plug to more active member oriented sites. Instead what we got were reference to the recovery site.

 

From what I understand from his statements, he is no longer an orthodox believing member of the church.  He has said that he attends about 50% of the time.

 

The sites he suggested seem to be the ones he feels are most useful in helping members who struggle.  He doesn't feel that this site or FAIR are helpful in that regard.  I agree with him.

[rockpond]

And I'm agreeing with you.  Anybody who knows him wouldn't expect him to send people anywhere that might strengthen their testimonies.

 

But anybody who knows him necessarily knows that his marketing hype isn't the real deal.

 

 

Ah, the obligatory sneer of the self-righteous.

 

I don't recall that this site has been promoted as a place to send "members struggling through a faith crisis."  I certainly wouldn't send anyone here for that purpose.  This is not the right environment for such things.  There are too many naysayers, and there have been too many poseurs, to really allow that kind of discussion.

 

One of the most shopworn, hackneyed schticks that plays out here is the dyed-in-the-wool anti-Mormon who rocks up with a boilerplate cover story: They are an oh so faithful member with a couple of dozen callings under their belt, whose g-g-g-g-grandparents shoved a handcart all the way to the Valley-O, but who is now bothered with "just one little question."

 

And that "just one little question" quickly expands into a standard laundry list of anti-Mormon talking points.

 

So while it is easy, and lazily convenient, to blame the "contributors" for this state of affairs -- and while it is also very satisfying for you, because it lets you bask in your magnificent superiority -- it is not of our making.

 

Just so you know.

 

But there are other places Mister Dehlin could send people if he genuinely wanted to strengthen them.  The Maxwell Institute, which suppressed the review that he so bitterly resents, for one.  FAIR for another.  FAIR has a wiki that covers many of the standard anti-Mormon talking points that people may be confronted with.

 

So naturally, he recommends Grant Palmer instead.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

I wasn't trying to sound self-righteous.  I said that I didn't see this board as a good place to send struggling members.  You agree.  I'm not sure what "magnificent superiority" you think I am basking in.

 

Dehlin doesn't see MI or FAIR as places that help members who are struggling.  I found that to be true for myself.  What would you have him say?

 

If you want to promote those two sites... by all means... go promote them.  I just can't figure out why anyone here expected Dehlin to do it.