Sandra Tanner Is A Member Of Mormonstories

[Pahoran]

Actually Sandra met Jerald in SLC in about 1959.  He was already preaching against racism within the LDS Church.  They were both baptized in the same Whitmerite Church in Independence, Missouri.  I knew and spent a lot of time with the members of that Independence congregation (Church of Christ).  They were good people, even if they were anti-Mormon.  They were very kind to me, even though I did not share their views.

I hear a great deal about "real" Mormons (Molly Mormons, TBMs, and such) from a variety of circles and sources, some of them drawing the walls and lines very narrowly -- admitting only a select group -- yet both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith had little patience with the "smooth faced hypocrites" who certainly appeared outwardly to be the goody-goodies, but whose hearts lacked love at best and were black as Hell at worst.  Give me an honest and kind-hearted Jack-Mormon any day.  Hating apostates is so easy, and it bespeaks lack of faith in one's own beliefs.  Same for hating Sunday-go-to-meetin True Blue endowed Mormons.  They are so easy to hate.

 

Others figure that Hitler, Stalin, and even Satan may be forgiven and admitted to Heaven -- so universalist is the Mormon message.

 

All of us would be far better off just being kind to our neighbors and being a little less legalistic and judgmental.  Heck, some might even think that "Christlike"!

If you know anyone who is "hating apostates" etc. would you please be so kind as to point them out to me?

It's not a matter of "hating" anyone. It's a matter of pointing out what's really going on.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Helen47]

The latest Dialogue has an interesting letter from someone responding to Seth Payne's paper on pastoral apologetics. To me sounds it like an oxymoron. However I might call some LDS a TBM, someone who perhaps thinks uncritically. I was sitting on the train to work last week and happened to sit next to a chinese man who was scanning his tablet. I noticed he was reading the Ensign. I comment 'Oh LDS" and he responded "yes" I indicated that I use to be LDS. I tried to explain to his question why I no longer believed and he was almost robotic in his response. I imagined he would never have heard of Dialogue, Sunstone  or Mormon History Association. A TBM yes. You guys let peoples share their narratives of conversion or return to the LDS church but I understand never an exit story. Why is that? I think Seth Payne seems to be arguing that you should have a different approach to those people who leave. The Christians in Spain said to the remaining Moslems, leave, die or convert. The same is happening in Iraq where the Christians are being told the same by the ISIS. What a screwed up world we live in.

[rockpond]

Sandra as hyena. I like it!

Yup... Show her how we take the high road.

[readstoomuch]

Robert and Helen, I appreciate your explanation and ideas even if I don't understand all the ways that others no longer in the faith act towards the Church.

[readstoomuch]

So instead of starting another thread, I will add to this one. My bishop asked me to talk to a brother in the ward who is having a faith crisis. He has a large family and his wife is TBM (his words) and he is very angry. He is quite put off by John Dehlin and KK`s disciplinary actions. Yes, MormonStories has contributed to the delinquency of a very nice, bright young Mormon man. He doesn`t really trust me as I seem to represent the Church, even though I had my own faith crisis and history in the Church. His words sound exactly like the diatribe on MormonStories. In the interest of honest disclosure, JD has started a conversation on MS about how it has been argued by some that it is an angry, ex-mormon board. It sounds like he is deciding what the future of the FB group will be.

Anyway, this brother missed an appt that he made to speak with me and does not really want to talk to anybody that represents the Church. He will only go to a marriage counselor if they are not LDS and there is quite a bit of turmoil in his marriage. He wanted to go to a retreat put on by John Dehlin and his wife for couples where one partner is having a faith crisis. I think this is his future business plan and this couple`s problems were at least partly caused by his activities.

I pray for this brother, my son, and my daughter and all of those whose faith seems to have been harmed by MormonStories, OrdainWomen, Sandra Tanner and other entities like them. If there is really any one who has been helped by these kind of voices, then I certainly haven`t met them. I see broken people all around me-that`s what I see. I personally was always helped the most by those who could remain faithful and yet honest in their history and doctrine.

Edited July 23, 2014 by readstoomuch

[Robert F. Smith]

If you know anyone who is "hating apostates" etc. would you please be so kind as to point them out to me?

It's not a matter of "hating" anyone. It's a matter of pointing out what's really going on.

Regards,

Pahoran

If all you and I do is "tell it like it is," that may be quite proper.  I have no problem with that.  Unfortunately, this thread (and plenty of others) fairly ooze with hate.  I think that is counterproductive and unChristlike, and tells us more about the person doing the hating than about the subject they are addressing.  We all ought to take a deep breath and consider our words and emotions before we let er rip.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[readstoomuch]

If all you and I do is "tell it like it is," that may be quite proper.  I have no problem with that.  Unfortunately, this thread (and plenty of others) fairly ooze with hate.  I think that is counterproductive and unChristlike, and tells us more about the person doing the hating that about the subject they are addressing.  We all ought to take a deep breath and consider our words and emotions before we let er rip.

I started this thread and I don't know that it oozes with hate. What does one do when they see havoc all around them? Compared to what I read on MS, this all seems quite tame and measured.

[Tacenda]

I started this thread and I don't know that it oozes with hate. What does one do when they see havoc all around them? Compared to what I read on MS, this all seems quite tame and measured.

I'm so glad I'm not a member of MS FB group now, I got so sick of reading what members would say, but realize they are often in alot of pain. They can't complain anywhere else. I wish it was as easy as a former 1st counselor in the bishopric said when he admitted having one of his own FC. He said it may not be easy but you need to ramp up, not his word, your activity in the church even more, to offset the FC, I guess. Or do the basic like personal prayer and read your scriptures.

[Robert F. Smith]

I started this thread and I don't know that it oozes with hate. What does one do when they see havoc all around them? Compared to what I read on MS, this all seems quite tame and measured.

drop to stupid comments

this is a time for you to demonstrate silliness

Sandra Tanner, doyenne and Queen Regnant of the anti-Mormon demimonde

When I think of absurd theories you are the first purveyor that I think of.  

just a bunch of piranha`s on a feeding frenzy.  No moderators to keep things balanced.  More disingenuous trash talk and jabs than a pie-eating contest. 

it needs to be downright nasty to any one who actually believes all of this stuff. 

If John Dehlin and MS could be as honest about what seems to happen, then by golly have Satan on himself if you can get him out of Hell this time of year. 

we should fear some old lady.

He has done a great deal of damage to members' testimonies. And he continues to not believe in the church and to do his own evangelizing. I believe that many would equate john not getting disciplined and Kate being disciplined as a gender problem: Women should have no voice but men can have a voice.

I like my anti-mormons straight up. No ice, foo foo, flavoring or anything to make it taste better going down. No pretended objectivity.

No. She most certainly does not.

She has an exit narrative to tell. That's not a "Mormon story" in any meaningful way.

If "Ex" is a "flavor" of "Mormons," then Salmonella is a "flavor" of chicken.

Ex-Mormons are not Mormons. An "ex" is a has-been.

Ms Tanner is a professional anti-Mormon propagandist. Whatever she chooses to say (or not say) about her failure to live the Gospel, it is at all times driven by her agenda.

Her exit narrative is entirely agenda-driven, and those who call it a "Mormon story" are admitting that Mister Dehlin's "Mormon Stories" project is an anti-Mormon propaganda mill.

Whatever "Mormon story" she ever had is a dim and distant memory! The only story she can tell now is an "apostate story!"

I will readily admit that the decades-old exit narrative (or "perversion story," the opposite of a conversion story) of a decrepit apostate is certainly good enough of a "Mormon story" for Mister Dehlin's project!

That old lady has destroyed many peoples testimony of the Gospel.  Understand, we aren't talking about "views", people simply sharing "views" of things, we are talking about bearing false witness.

Those who engage in anti-mormonism are nothing more than bigots, because almost everything they say about their target is a lie, a perversion of truth and fact.

And that makes her the worst kind of liar.

Sandra as hyena. I like it! 

I started this thread and I don't know that it oozes with hate. 

[readstoomuch]

So, yes some of those comments are not fair or proper. Many are quite even and thought out.

In my mission I came across a thousand people with Sandras books or pamphlets. My children and friend are greatly affected by these groups. When I get on the MS FB group the comments are 10-20 times worse than your collection of diatribe we said here.

I know that Robert has a justifiable soft spot for the Tanners. What can I say when I personally know a dozen kids in my stake heading down the MS road. Sandra affected my mission 30 years ago, but MS has been a huge burden on my family and ward now. I am trying to be measured.

What can I say Robert? What is fair and measured in my situation?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So instead of starting another thread, I will add to this one. My bishop asked me to talk to a brother in the ward who is having a faith crisis. He has a large family and his wife is TBM (his words) and he is very angry. He is quite put off by John Dehlin and KK`s disciplinary actions. Yes, MormonStories has contributed to the delinquency of a very nice, bright young Mormon man. He doesn`t really trust me as I seem to represent the Church, even though I had my own faith crisis and history in the Church. His words sound exactly like the diatribe on MormonStories. In the interest of honest disclosure, JD has started a conversation on MS about how it has been argued by some that it is an angry, ex-mormon board. It sounds like he is deciding what the future of the FB group will be.

Anyway, this brother missed an appt that he made to speak with me and does not really want to talk to anybody that represents the Church. He will only go to a marriage counselor if they are not LDS and there is quite a bit of turmoil in his marriage. He wanted to go to a retreat put on by John Dehlin and his wife for couples where one partner is having a faith crisis. I think this is his future business plan and this couple`s problems were at least partly caused by his activities.

I pray for this brother, my son, and my daughter and all of those whose faith seems to have been harmed by MormonStories, OrdainWomen, Sandra Tanner and other entities like them. If there is really any one who has been helped by these kind of voices, then I certainly haven`t met them. I see broken people all around me-that`s what I see. I personally was always helped the most by those who could remain faithful and yet honest in their history and doctrine.

I have a hard time understanding this sentiment. Why is Kate Kelly to blame? Does the church have any share of the blame? Past policy prevented women from praying in sacrament meeting, and general conference. Many sisters served missions and felt the lack of opportunities to lead.  Many women in the church feel like they don't have a voice or their voice isn't heard. There are many faithful sisters on this board who, while disagreeing with Kate, express that they feel treated unequally. Do the brethren have any responsibility for creating an environment where Kate Kelly's message resonates with so many of our brothers or sisters in the gospel? 

 

John Dehlin lets people tell their stories. Some are faithful, many are not. Some are just stories of people in pain. I don't see what the big deal is. There is no shortage of sites from FAIR, to church, to lds.org where only faithful stories are told. The "Mormon Stories" resonate with people. People find out things they never learned in a lifetime attending weekly church services, 4 years of seminary, institute, serving full time missions and countless callings. People feel betrayed and certain "apologists" tell them its their own fault for not looking to that one ensign article published 25 years ago. John Dehlin does not share the church's position, but is that his job? Why is it so seditious to listen to people presenting a different side of the story? Should we only look to faith affirming sources for information? Again do the brethren share responsibility for creating an environment where John's message resonates so well with many of the faithful? That people feel lied to, betrayed, or let down is not John's fault.

 

In response to a member of this board saying that the behavior of some believing members was causing him to lose faith, this was said: "Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal." This same poster went on to say that "But I hope that compassion will also be felt, and prayers also offered, for those whose testimonies have been destroyed ... as a direct result of the activities of John Dehlin and (to a far lesser degree) of Kate Kelly.  I know quite a few of them, and I’m aware of many more." It's seems a little two faced. Over zealous church members don't drive people from the church, but people like KK and JD do? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

While extremely flawed (like the rest of us), and hypocritical (like the rest of us), I don't see anything sinister about what Kate and John do. John and Kate are very upfront about what they are and what they are about. From the mormonstories about page:

 

 

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 either have serious doubts about, or 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).

 

 

To me it seems a little too neat and tidy to lay the blame at the feet of people like Kate and John. Kind of like shooting the messenger.

Edited July 23, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

I have a hard time understanding this sentiment. Why is Kate Kelly to blame? Does the church have any share of the blame? Past policy prevented women from praying in sacrament meeting, and general conference. Many sisters served missions and felt the lack of opportunities to lead.  Many women in the church feel like they don't have a voice or their voice isn't heard. There are many faithful sisters on this board who, while disagreeing with Kate, express that they feel treated unequally. Do the brethren have any responsibility for creating an environment where Kate Kelly's message resonates with so many of our brothers or sisters in the gospel? 

 

John Dehlin lets people tell their stories. Some are faithful, many are not. Some are just stories of people in pain. I don't see what the big deal is. There is no shortage of sites from FAIR, to church, to lds.org where only faithful stories are told. The "Mormon Stories" resonate with people. People find out things they never learned in a lifetime attending weekly church services, 4 years of seminary, institute, serving full time missions and countless callings. People feel betrayed and certain "apologists" tell them its their own fault for not looking to that one ensign article published 25 years ago. John Dehlin does not share the church's position, but is that his job? Why is it so seditious to listen to people presenting a different side of the story? Should we only look to faith affirming sources for information? Again do the brethren share responsibility for creating an environment where John's message resonates so well with many of the faithful? That people feel lied to, betrayed, or let down is not John's fault.

 

In response to a member of this board saying that the behavior of some believing members was causing him to lose faith, this was said: "Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal." This same poster went on to say that "But I hope that compassion will also be felt, and prayers also offered, for those whose testimonies have been destroyed ... as a direct result of the activities of John Dehlin and (to a far lesser degree) of Kate Kelly.  I know quite a few of them, and I’m aware of many more." It's seems a little two faced. Over zealous church members don't drive people from the church, but people like KK and JD do? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

While extremely flawed (like the rest of us), and hypocritical (like the rest of us), I don't see anything sinister about what Kate and John do. John and Kate are very upfront about what they are and what they are about. From the mormonstories about page:

 

 

To me it seems a little too neat and tidy to lay the blame at the feet of people like Kate and John. Kind of like shooting the messenger.

If each Church member stayed focused on improving their own gospel knowledge and prayer-life; focused on the leading of their own families by family scripture study, family home evening, family prayer and constant, loving family interaction under the influence of the Spirit; focused on diligently attending to their home teaching and visiting teaching responsibilities and to their Church callings -- whatever those callings might be; and focused on magnifying their own positive spiritual and moral influence within their own little spheres of influence, this Church would become a Zion community, like Enoch's city of holiness, and all this power struggle nonsense would become a nonissue.

[Tacenda]

drop to stupid comments

this is a time for you to demonstrate silliness

Sandra Tanner, doyenne and Queen Regnant of the anti-Mormon demimonde

When I think of absurd theories you are the first purveyor that I think of.

just a bunch of piranha`s on a feeding frenzy. No moderators to keep things balanced. More disingenuous trash talk and jabs than a pie-eating contest.

it needs to be downright nasty to any one who actually believes all of this stuff.

If John Dehlin and MS could be as honest about what seems to happen, then by golly have Satan on himself if you can get him out of Hell this time of year.

we should fear some old lady.

He has done a great deal of damage to members' testimonies. And he continues to not believe in the church and to do his own evangelizing. I believe that many would equate john not getting disciplined and Kate being disciplined as a gender problem: Women should have no voice but men can have a voice.

I like my anti-mormons straight up. No ice, foo foo, flavoring or anything to make it taste better going down. No pretended objectivity.

No. She most certainly does not.

She has an exit narrative to tell. That's not a "Mormon story" in any meaningful way.

If "Ex" is a "flavor" of "Mormons," then Salmonella is a "flavor" of chicken.

Ex-Mormons are not Mormons. An "ex" is a has-been.

Ms Tanner is a professional anti-Mormon propagandist. Whatever she chooses to say (or not say) about her failure to live the Gospel, it is at all times driven by her agenda.

Her exit narrative is entirely agenda-driven, and those who call it a "Mormon story" are admitting that Mister Dehlin's "Mormon Stories" project is an anti-Mormon propaganda mill.

Whatever "Mormon story" she ever had is a dim and distant memory! The only story she can tell now is an "apostate story!"

I will readily admit that the decades-old exit narrative (or "perversion story," the opposite of a conversion story) of a decrepit apostate is certainly good enough of a "Mormon story" for Mister Dehlin's project!

That old lady has destroyed many peoples testimony of the Gospel. Understand, we aren't talking about "views", people simply sharing "views" of things, we are talking about bearing false witness.

Those who engage in anti-mormonism are nothing more than bigots, because almost everything they say about their target is a lie, a perversion of truth and fact.

And that makes her the worst kind of liar.

Sandra as hyena. I like it!

I started this thread and I don't know that it oozes with hate.

I'm glad I read the first sentence of your post Robert, I was starting to think you had multiple personalities!!

[Tacenda]

I have a hard time understanding this sentiment. Why is Kate Kelly to blame? Does the church have any share of the blame? Past policy prevented women from praying in sacrament meeting, and general conference. Many sisters served missions and felt the lack of opportunities to lead. Many women in the church feel like they don't have a voice or their voice isn't heard. There are many faithful sisters on this board who, while disagreeing with Kate, express that they feel treated unequally. Do the brethren have any responsibility for creating an environment where Kate Kelly's message resonates with so many of our brothers or sisters in the gospel?

John Dehlin lets people tell their stories. Some are faithful, many are not. Some are just stories of people in pain. I don't see what the big deal is. There is no shortage of sites from FAIR, to church, to lds.org where only faithful stories are told. The "Mormon Stories" resonate with people. People find out things they never learned in a lifetime attending weekly church services, 4 years of seminary, institute, serving full time missions and countless callings. People feel betrayed and certain "apologists" tell them its their own fault for not looking to that one ensign article published 25 years ago. John Dehlin does not share the church's position, but is that his job? Why is it so seditious to listen to people presenting a different side of the story? Should we only look to faith affirming sources for information? Again do the brethren share responsibility for creating an environment where John's message resonates so well with many of the faithful? That people feel lied to, betrayed, or let down is not John's fault.

In response to a member of this board saying that the behavior of some believing members was causing him to lose faith, this was said: "Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal." This same poster went on to say that "But I hope that compassion will also be felt, and prayers also offered, for those whose testimonies have been destroyed ... as a direct result of the activities of John Dehlin and (to a far lesser degree) of Kate Kelly. I know quite a few of them, and I’m aware of many more." It's seems a little two faced. Over zealous church members don't drive people from the church, but people like KK and JD do? Doesn't make sense to me.

While extremely flawed (like the rest of us), and hypocritical (like the rest of us), I don't see anything sinister about what Kate and John do. John and Kate are very upfront about what they are and what they are about. From the mormonstories about page:

To me it seems a little too neat and tidy to lay the blame at the feet of people like Kate and John. Kind of like shooting the messenger.

I've been trying to figure out how to say what you've said here for days, thanks, now I don't have to!

[Robert F. Smith]

So, yes some of those comments are not fair or proper. Many are quite even and thought out.

In my mission I came across a thousand people with Sandras books or pamphlets. My children and friend are greatly affected by these groups. When I get on the MS FB group the comments are 10-20 times worse than your collection of diatribe we said here.

I know that Robert has a justifiable soft spot for the Tanners. What can I say when I personally know a dozen kids in my stake heading down the MS road. Sandra affected my mission 30 years ago, but MS has been a huge burden on my family and ward now. I am trying to be measured.

What can I say Robert? What is fair and measured in my situation?

I had a bishop not long ago who could feel your pain.  He loved his kids and did all he could.  His wonderful wife did the same.  When his kids went the wrong way and ignored the Church, he thought he had failed them.  A few years later, they came back to the Church, married in the temple, and he was astonished.  He realized that all he could do was to love his kids and do the best he could in raising them.  The rest of the responsibility rested upon them.  They had to make their own decisions, meet their own tough challenges.  Not all Mormon stories can end so happily, and there will always be apostates.  Acceptance of those facts is the beginning of wisdom.  One must calmly accept the immature and reactionary antics of some young people, and simply hope and pray that they will finally get straight.  I know that when I was on the wrong path, my Momma spent a lot of time praying for me and placing my name on the Temple Prayer Roll.  At long last, I finally gave her reason to smile.  A great lady, with great faith.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................................

People feel betrayed and certain "apologists" tell them its their own fault for not looking to that one ensign article published 25 years ago. John Dehlin does not share the church's position, but is that his job? Why is it so seditious to listen to people presenting a different side of the story? Should we only look to faith affirming sources for information? Again do the brethren share responsibility for creating an environment where John's message resonates so well with many of the faithful? That people feel lied to, betrayed, or let down is not John's fault.

....................................................................................................................

The problem is that so-called "apologists" get blamed, while John Dehlin gets exonerated.  I know of no "apologist" who has acted so irresponsibly as you allege, but I have listened for hours to Dehlin interviews:  I did not expect him to take an "official" Church position, even if there is such a thing, but I did expect him to exhibit reasonably good interview skills and some basic knowledge about the LDS Church (history, tradition, and Scriptures).  He was after all a seminary teacher at one point.  I don't even hold him to the level of skill and preparation of Doug Fabrizio weekdays on "Radio West" (KUER-FM), but it would be nice if he could at least try.  Instead what Dehlin gives us is the most unperceptive interview comments and questions I have ever heard.  He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture.  The level of ignorance he exhibits in such areas is amazing for someone who is a graduate student in a serious academic program.  His response to such criticisms:  He deliberately prefers not to know the details (including not reading books being discussed), but wants of have a fresh encounter with someone (just like the listeners to his podcasts).  Reminds me of the dilemma faced by the blind leading the blind . . .

[Tacenda]

The problem is that so-called "apologists" get blamed, while John Dehlin gets exonerated. I know of no "apologist" who has acted so irresponsibly as you allege, but I have listened for hours to Dehlin interviews: I did not expect him to take an "official" Church position, even if there is such a thing, but I did expect him to exhibit reasonably good interview skills and some basic knowledge about the LDS Church (history, tradition, and Scriptures). He was after all a seminary teacher at one point. I don't even hold him to the level of skill and preparation of Doug Fabrizio weekdays on "Radio West" (KUER-FM), but it would be nice if he could at least try. Instead what Dehlin gives us is the most unperceptive interview comments and questions I have ever heard. He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture. The level of ignorance he exhibits in such areas is amazing for someone who is a graduate student in a serious academic program. His response to such criticisms: He deliberately prefers not to know the details (including not reading books being discussed), but wants of have a fresh encounter with someone (just like the listeners to his podcasts). Reminds me of the dilemma faced by the blind leading the blind . . .

I kinda agree here too.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The problem is that so-called "apologists" get blamed, while John Dehlin gets exonerated.  I know of no "apologist" who has acted so irresponsibly as you allege,

I should have taken the time to be more clear, so I apologize. Let me state that when I said "apologist" I was using the term not for people like Daniel Peterson, Brian Hales, the people at FairMormon, or individuals like yourself. I think that apologists have a place and by and large do really good work. I used scare quotes "apologists" in the sense of a small minority of church defenders on this board, in our wards, etc that take a very hard line with those that raise questions and criticize the church. I will also note that I think it is ridiculous to leave over some interaction on a message board.

As to apologists getting blamed while John gets exonerated, I also reject this narrative. In my mind we are each responsible for our own actions. I think when John and his followers blame "Peterson style apologetics" for people leaving the church, he is way over the top.

 

but I have listened for hours to Dehlin interviews:  I did not expect him to take an "official" Church position, even if there is such a thing, but I did expect him to exhibit reasonably good interview skills and some basic knowledge about the LDS Church (history, tradition, and Scriptures).  He was after all a seminary teacher at one point.  I don't even hold him to the level of skill and preparation of Doug Fabrizio weekdays on "Radio West" (KUER-FM), but it would be nice if he could at least try.  Instead what Dehlin gives us is the most unperceptive interview comments and questions I have ever heard.  He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture.  The level of ignorance he exhibits in such areas is amazing for someone who is a graduate student in a serious academic program.  His response to such criticisms:  He deliberately prefers not to know the details (including not reading books being discussed), but wants of have a fresh encounter with someone (just like the listeners to his podcasts).  Reminds me of the dilemma faced by the blind leading the blind . . .

First let me state that I think your much of your criticism of John is spot on. In many of John's interviews with critics, John provides little more than an echo chamber. John is at his worst in interviews with people like Micheal Coe, Grant Palmer etc.

That said, part of John's appeal is that most members of the church (and most people in general) have difficultly getting through academic material. In my experience, John's level of church knowledge is not off base for a seminary teacher and John's representation of the LDS Church (history, tradition, and Scriptures) is certainly representative of many peoples experience in the church. While John does not prepare adequately for his interviews (on this I whole heartedly agree), It is unfair to say "He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members. The ideas that John puts forth about the LDS Church are things that I have heard at Church all my life. This is part of John's appeal. John speaks to average, non acedemic, church members experiences in the church.

If the church wants to lesson the effect of people like John Dehlin, it needs to present a more nuanced view of itself and its history. The gospel topic essays are a good start, but until people start hearing about these things in gospel doctrine, in seminary, and other official church venues, people like John Dehlin will continue to have appeal to people who feel misled. (Please note I do not necessarily advocate for doing this as I think it could be traumatizing for many members. That said, the tradeoff is having a small percentage of members feeling betrayed and finding people like John Dehlin very appealing).

[rockpond]

I should have taken the time to be more clear, so I apologize. Let me state that when I said "apologist" I was using the term not for people like Daniel Peterson, Brian Hales, the people at FairMormon, or individuals like yourself. I think that apologists have a place and by and large do really good work. I used scare quotes "apologists" in the sense of a small minority of church defenders on this board, in our wards, etc that take a very hard line with those that raise questions and criticize the church. I will also note that I think it is ridiculous to leave over some interaction on a message board.

As to apologists getting blamed while John gets exonerated, I also reject this narrative. In my mind we are each responsible for our own actions. I think when John and his followers blame "Peterson style apologetics" for people leaving the church, he is way over the top.

 

First let me state that I think your much of your criticism of John is spot on. In many of John's interviews with critics, John provides little more than an echo chamber. John is at his worst in interviews with people like Micheal Coe, Grant Palmer etc.

That said, part of John's appeal is that most members of the church (and most people in general) have difficultly getting through academic material. In my experience, John's level of church knowledge is not off base for a seminary teacher and John's representation of the LDS Church (history, tradition, and Scriptures) is certainly representative of many peoples experience in the church. While John does not prepare adequately for his interviews (on this I whole heartedly agree), It is unfair to say "He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members. The ideas that John puts forth about the LDS Church are things that I have heard at Church all my life. This is part of John's appeal. John speaks to average, non acedemic, church members experiences in the church.

If the church wants to lesson the effect of people like John Dehlin, it needs to present a more nuanced view of itself and its history. The gospel topic essays are a good start, but until people start hearing about these things in gospel doctrine, in seminary, and other official church venues, people like John Dehlin will continue to have appeal to people who feel misled. (Please note I do not necessarily advocate for doing this as I think it could be traumatizing for many members. That said, the tradeoff is having a small percentage of members feeling betrayed and finding people like John Dehlin very appealing).

 

I agree that Dehlin is a poor interviewer (both in terms of prep work and execution).  I further agree, quite vehemently, that Dehlin represents the "average member" and therein lies his appeal.  Such is the state of the internet -- those who believe that only quality journalism should earn devoted fans are not following the current online trends.  MS Podcasts have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times because they appeal to questioning/doubting/concerned members in a way that other sources have failed to do.

[Calm]

"He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members"

I see a significant problem though considering he has been looking at this stuff for years and has supposedly been learning from the experts. In my experience, an active church member who has that level of exposure over a decade or more even if all they do is listen, they have become quite knowledgeable.

[rockpond]

"He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members"

I see a significant problem though considering he has been looking at this stuff for years and has supposedly been learning from the experts. In my experience, an active church member who has that level of exposure over a decade or more even if all they do is listen, they have become quite knowledgeable.

 

I think it's unfair to say that Dehlin doesn't have a clue.  He actually knows quite a bit about church history & doctrine.

 

My criticism of him as an interviewer is related to the fact that he doesn't always seem to do a lot of prep work (like becoming really familiar with an interviewee's writings, for example) and his interviewing style (his penchant for asking ridiculously long multi-part questions has become comical nowadays - even to him).

 

But I do think he knows church doctrine and history.  And knows more than he even lets on in his podcasts and writings as his desire is to represent average members.  IMO.

[Calm]

I think it's unfair to say that Dehlin doesn't have a clue. He actually knows quite a bit about church history & doctrine.

My criticism of him as an interviewer is related to the fact that he doesn't always seem to do a lot of prep work (like becoming really familiar with an interviewee's writings, for example) and his interviewing style (his penchant for asking ridiculously long multi-part questions has become comical nowadays - even to him).

But I do think he knows church doctrine and history. And knows more than he even lets on in his podcasts and writings as his desire is to represent average members. IMO.

I am not saying he doesn't have a clue, just that in the case of a few interviews the way he talks it is like they never happened (he neglects the information the expert provided him). Edited July 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

I am not saying he doesn't have a clue, just that in the case of a few interviews the way he talks it is like they never happened (he neglects the information the expert provided him).

 

Agreed.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"He seems not to have a clue about Church history, doctrine, or Scripture" unless you are willing to put say the same about 90% (or more) of active church members"

I see a significant problem though considering he has been looking at this stuff for years and has supposedly been learning from the experts. In my experience, an active church member who has that level of exposure over a decade or more even if all they do is listen, they have become quite knowledgeable.

Without citing specific examples of what you are talking about, this point is hard to address.

To provide a case in point to discuss, I provide the following from Brian Hales:

Since I took no notes, I will provide only one example, but when the podcast is posted, John Dehlin’s comments will be available. I remember that John invited Alex Beam to speak about Joseph Smith “going after young girls.” I wondered, “What are they talking about?” It is true that Joseph was sealed to two 14 year olds. One (Nancy Maria Winchester) we know nothing about, so to discuss her situation in any way, positive or negative, requires speculation. The second woman, Helen Mar Kimball, was offered to Joseph as a plural wife by her father Heber C. Kimball. There is no evidence the Prophet initiated the process. Importantly, there is strong evidence the sealing was never consummated and no supportive evidence that it was. Joseph was also sealed to a 16 year old and two 17 year olds, but marriages to women of those ages were not uncommon during that time period. Thus I was disappointed at what I perceived to be a conversation discussing historical fiction that was portrayed as documented history in a way that depicted Joseph Smith as a libertine—a man essentially devoid of moral constrains.

First let me agree with Brian that John is not a neutral source of information (no one is). What is important to me is that people are upfront about what they are and where they are coming from. John is clearly agnostic and does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the reality of prophetic revelation or many other central tenets of the church. He does not believe that polygamy is inspired by God. John has been all over the map since his podcast began. In my experience however, John has always been quite clear about where he is at and where he is coming from at the moment. John freely admits that he has been over the top critical in some of his interviews (Brant Garnder's and this one for example). Regarding this interview, John Dehlin stated:

Pete – I admit that my tone was particularly harsh the day I interviewed Alex. Just as a matter of disclosure — that day (only a few hours earlier) was the day I had received my letter from my stake president threatening a disciplinary council — so my feelings were particularly raw.

I am going to work hard to be less aggressive in my interviews going forward, and I sincerely apologize for the lapses of late. — John

Second, I completely agree that if John challenged church critics in his interviews they would be much better and much more useful. On this particular question, it would have been interesting to see his response to Brian's assertions. I don't see his lack here though as demonstrating a lack of knowledge about this issue. Clearly he knows Brian Hale's position he just rejects it. He is upfront about this rejection. The problem as I see it is that the church does not have a position. The church is very near to silent on Joseph Smith's polygamy and "polyandry." The church has not published anything about whether or not Joseph's marriages were consummated. Apologists don't agree themselves on these issues. How can John represent the church's position in his questions when the church doesn't take a position?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am not saying he doesn't have a clue, just that in the case of a few interviews the way he talks it is like they never happened (he neglects the information the expert provided him).

I would say rejects rather than neglects. Going back to the Brian Hale example, while Brian is certainly an expert and has furthered the field, his conclusions are not close to universal when it comes to Church apologists (see Juliann's post on Joseph's polyandry here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63527-was-polyandry-really-polyandry-and-does-it-have-scriptural-precedent/?p=1209380876)

And again, the church does not have a position on the issue.

Edited July 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding