Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[cinepro]

This morning on NPR, they interview John Dehlin for the latest.

 

I found these claims to be the most interesting:

 

"[After studying the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon] I discovered that there's a mountain of evidence that indicates that they're 19th century documents and not anything necessarily directly of God. And so that's led me to not be able to believe everything the church teaches." (1:18)

 

"Prior to, let's just say 2010, most Mormons didn't know that their founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist." (2:50)

 

"Oprah Winfrey has a show called 'Super Soul Sunday'; we watch that every Sunday to get some spiritual edification." (6:05)

 

"Honestly, I haven't missed Church at all, and in fact, [not attending] has been incredibly healing as a family." (6:15)

 

"I guess we still hold out hope that we can make the Mormon Church our home, but they would have to make a lot of very significant changes before we could do that." (6:30)

 

 

 

Curiouser and curiouser.

Edited February 2, 2015 by cinepro

[Duncan]

it sounds like he doesn't hold out for him staying in the Church

[thesometimesaint]

Sounds like apostasy to me. Until he has a change of heart we're better off without him.

[carbon dioxide]

My dog would contribute more to the Church than this guy. 

[juliann]

When is the council supposed to be?  Oh, never mind...Sunday.

 

If it unfolds like he plans, that only gives him a week to be interesting.  

Edited February 2, 2015 by juliann

[Tacenda]

That has got to be hard on the kids, but I may be wrong. Maybe they still attend the youth activities.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's pretty obvious at this point that his intent all along has been to revamp the Church from within to suit himself. Now that it's clear that won't happen he is in effect laying down ultimata: "A lot of things would have to change," etc.

[Raingirl]

This morning on NPR, they interview John Dehlin for the latest.

 

I found these claims to be the most interesting:

 

"[After studying the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon] I discovered that there's a mountain of evidence that indicates that they're 19th century documents and not anything necessarily directly of God. And so that's led me to not be able to believe everything the church teaches." (1:18)

 

"Prior to, let's just say 2010, most Mormons didn't know that their founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist." (2:50)

 

"Oprah Winfrey has a show called 'Super Soul Sunday'; we watch that every Sunday to get some spiritual edification." (6:05)

 

"Honestly, I haven't missed Church at all, and in fact, [not attending] has been incredibly healing as a family." (6:15)

 

"I guess we still hold out hope that we can make the Mormon Church our home, but they would have to make a lot of very significant changes before we could do that." (6:30)

 

 

 

Curiouser and curiouser.

Most Mormons didn't know before 2010 that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy? Does he think that because words come out of his mouth, they suddenly become fact?

We're supposed to be impressed that he worships at the church of Oprah?

Why would anyone claim that they would want to be part of a church that they feel is woefully deficient and wrong to the point of needing to make significant changes? That's just nonsensical. And smacks of a certain arrogance.

[readstoomuch]

I wish him well. Hope he eventually finds God and Christ. Would be glad if he and MormonStories become less of a media issue.

Edited February 2, 2015 by readstoomuch

[Stargazer]

Sounds like apostasy to me. Until he has a change of heart we're better off without him.

And yet, there are those who claim Dehlin stopped them from leaving the Church. I suppose he can still serve the purpose outside of it.

[why me]

And yet, there are those who claim Dehlin stopped them from leaving the Church. I suppose he can still serve the purpose outside of it.

I believe that this was when he was rather actively attempting to get people to stay. His podcasts were not always so critical. In the beginning his podcasts were an attempt to answer his own questions about the church history etc. When one listens to the first podcasts, we can see him getting a ho, ho, moment as he was learning from the interviewee. But then he strayed off course and contributed to people leaving because he became a critic. And then he returned, disapoointing those who left the church because of his MS chapters, conferences and podcasts. And now, he is back in the critical stage. One lesson to learn in all this is: don't follow john.

Edited February 2, 2015 by why me

[Rob Osborn]

Dehlin types scare me because they play off of lies and deceit.

[Brian 2.0]

Dehlin types scare me because they play off of lies and deceit.

Or they focus on hard TRUTHS without providing the best context or paradigms to make sense of the harder truths.

[Rob Osborn]

Or they focus on hard TRUTHS without providing the best context or paradigms to make sense of the harder truths.

The whole deal is just bad. I hope and pray for him but he is on a long dark road straight into the jaws of hell.

[Kaleb Webb]

 

 

"Prior to, let's just say 2010, most Mormons didn't know that their founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist." (2:50)

Hogwash.

[why me]

The polygamy angle is interesting. In 2003, Jeffrey O' Driscoll wrote a biography of hyrum smith and in it, there is much about joseph's polygamy and hyrum's reaction to it. It was published in 2003. So, all those who read that book in 2003 would have read about joseph's and hyrum's polygamy. But who reads such books? Many members would prefer to read compton or palmer than such books by O' Driscoll. Has John read the biography of Hyrum back in 2003? And if so, did he recommend the book on his podcast? Maybe. I hope so. 

 

People need to read books and not only the critic books on church history. We also need more independent scholars to write lds history. But they do not seem interested. I am not sure that it is up to a church to teach indepth history. Most catholics learn their history from books written by scholars or historians. Very little comes from the vatican or from the local church. Likewise for other faiths.

 

http://deseretbook.com/Hyrum-Smith-Life-Integrity-Jeffrey-S-ODriscoll/i/5053130

Edited February 2, 2015 by why me

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's pretty obvious at this point that his intent all along has been to revamp the Church from within to suit himself.

 

I think in this case we can take John at his (current) word, posted on Facebook earlier today, concerning his intent: his 'focus', he wrote, has been 'LDS problem awareness/criticism/activism'.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Ham Clam]

Did anyone read what Anne McMullin Peffer (co-Mormon Stories Founder, non-believer) wrote in several Mormon Groups? It makes me think this whole thing is even crazier.

 

 

 

THIS IS A PR BATTLE

Think of what you're seeing as a PR Battle: JD vs. the Church. Both parties want you to believe certain things and each party promotes ideas that forward personal or institutional objectives.

There are more than two parties in the conflict, however.

THE PARTIES:

1) JD
2) Church Leadership
3) The Church PR Department
4) JD's Local Leadership
5) The Media -- left and right
6) The Public

THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES:

John's __local leadership__ is caught with the ax in the middle. They're in the worst position. They are probably the most innocent party as well as the party that will take the most undeserved blame and heat. It's unfortunate what is happening to John's local leadership right now. They need love and support. This isn't their fault. They did not wield this war and, most likely, they are doing what they believe to be right. They will be unjustly blamed for many things including being against women and LGBT people during a time when it is becoming increasingly popular to support underprivileged populations. They will go down in history negatively, but all they did to bring this upon themselves is accept a calling they believed to have been inspired by god. These are likely good men trying their hardest in a very tough situation.

The __Church PR department__ speaks for Church leadership when they deem it necessary for the purpose of affecting public opinion. They are not innocent victims, they are strategists. __Media venues__ take sides dependent upon their own political affiliations and readerships. The Trib and the NY Times will primarily forward social justice issues as being behind the discipline, the more conservative publications will forward religious ideals. They are not innocent victims, they are organizations with agendas that seek to influence the public.

__Members of the public__ are viewed by both John and the church, including the PR department, as seeds in the wind to be planted in the soil each party prefers.

Members of the public are innocent like John's local leadership except to the extent to which they allow themselves to be tossed back and forth and align themselves with whatever side makes them feel the best about who they are and their own life-decisions rather than attempting to understand what is really happening. Individual members of the public have personal agendas, too. Their agendas are just generally increasing a sense of self-worth rather than affecting large groups of people like JD, the Church, the Church PR department and the media are attempting to do. The guilt of the public is in lack of individual self-awareness, not intentional manipulation of thousands of people. JD, the Church, the Church PR Department and the Media are responsible for their attempts to manipulate the public; they are cognizant of what they are doing. They are not lacking in self-awareness as many members of the public are.

__John__ is taking specific, calculated actions in order to meet his objectives. He is taking them because he has incentives. He is not an innocent victim because he is the instigator of the conflict. He uses "ends justify the means" reasoning to justify his provocations of the Church, the Church PR department, the public and his local leaders. His campaigns for social justice causes help him justify his intentional provocations no matter how many people he influences for better of for worse. He tells himself and others that he is improving lives. Sometimes he is. In his mind he is therefore justified regardless.

_________

THINKING IN TERMS OF INCENTIVES AND OBJECTIVES:

It helps to think in terms of objectives and incentives of all the parties rather than in terms of spirituality even though many people will address spiritual issues in their writing and as they promote their own agendas. Many of us who grew up Mormon were raised to believe that membership is about eternal salvation, but that's not what's happening here. What's happening is a long term media battle. It has been going on for several years. John has taken the church on intentionally and this is the climax of his war. He is very aware of what he is doing, why he is doing it and what he wants to accomplish through the battle. He's just had his ups and downs along the way. He does not believe this has anything to do with his eternal salvation and he believes he can __gain__ community through excommunication. In John's mind, excommunication will add to him, not take away from him.

John's objectives are becoming a martyr for social justice and going down in history as a hero like the September Six. This is very important to him. He also wants to gain a following and wants that following to help him forward his career and support his family. He is not secretive about any of this; these things align with his public statements and behaviors. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. This is not an accusation; this is what John promotes himself.

__________

IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND JOHN'S OBJECTIVES AND INCENTIVES OR GET GLIMPSES INTO WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENE, WATCH HIS PUBLIC ACTIONS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT HE'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH:

John will do several things to forward his objectives of becoming a social justice martyr and Septermber-six-ish hero during the next little while. When he speaks to media and makes blog posts and public statements, he will accentuate his social justice resume. He will connect himself to other church disciplines around this time period for the purpose of drawing attention to the connection he would like people to see between himself and others so that he can later make the claim that he was the victim of a centralized top-down excommunication scheme. This is in his best interest because this will help him go down in history as a victim and make him a hero. Think of what he must have said to Laurie Goodstein when he contacted her to promote his excommunication in order to elicit the articles we have read in the NY Times.

As far as social justice issues, he just published an op-ed with a couple colleagues about homosexuality being a spectrum. He times his public statements with his career objectives including his objective of becoming a martyr/hero for social justice issues with wherever he is today in his battle with the church and his attempt to gain the kind of martyrdom he wants. He puts posts on his blog and releases podcasts that help him meet his current objectives. Today it's about making sure everyone knows that he's being disciplined for social justice issues. This is what will make him go down in history positively and what will hurt his local leaders (who are innocent) because they will go down in history for being against women and LGBT people. He is harming them to help himself even though they didn't ask to be put in their current positions.

Likewise, John boosts to the top of his blog feed whatever he currently wants to use to provoke the public, the church, his local leadership, or one of his enemies or competitors. He uses his feed to fight his wars or ask for money. What's at the top today is what is most important to him today for whatever strategic purpose he has right now. What's at the top tomorrow will be what is most important to him tomorrow. Today it is important for him to promote his social justice work because today he wants people to believe this is why he is being excommunicated. (And who really cares about the "truth"? That was lost long ago amidst the thousands of confusing conversations and the promotion of several differing and changing facts.)

__________

MEETING OBJECTIVES THROUGH INTENTIONAL PROVOCATION:

If today his objective were to provoke the church into actually axing him, for example, he'd do something like post the Tom Phillips podcast or promote a John Larsen interview (because he got in trouble with local leadership for things he said in a JL interview in early 2012). If he gets worried that it's too obvious that he wants to be excommunicated if he puts up a Tom Phillips interview, he'll take it down and hope nobody notices or that they or the historical record forget. If he wants to make his SP mad enough to ex him, he'll post an interview that he knows will to provoke his SP into actually wielding the ax. If he wants to intimidate an enemy or competitor, he'll post something to his feed that he knows bothers that person. That's the way he uses media to change public opinion, affect the church, intimidate his opposition or provoke his local leadership.

Once he has made actions of provocation, let's say -- as in this case -- to his local leadership, and his local leadership acts in response to the provocation by calling for a meeting or trying to communicate honestly and forthrightly about what needs to happen to resolve the problem, John will respond by making public posts about the private conversations and how he has been hurt, etc. He will publicize what has been said privately with some amount of accuracy but will also omit certain portions and accentuate the portions that forward his objectives.

_______

"ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" and CONFIDENTIALITY

John has a long history of publicizing private communications out of context in order to promote the view of a situation that is most beneficial to him. What is shared publicly isn't especially accurate, but it is what he wants people to believe. It's an "ends justify the means" kind of thinking. If John believes that he will help the world (or himself... or, more accurately, help himself by helping the world) by promoting a certain idea, it doesn't really matter if what he is saying accurately represents what happened privately or who he might hurt. Think of when he posted a private communication from DCP publicly during a time DCP was mourning and justified doing so through his knowledge that he was taking down what he believed to be the evil of apologetics. John also does this to people who were once his friends. Thus, he has a lot of angry ex-friends who feel they have been wronged by someone they trusted.

At the same time he inaccurately or unjustly publicizes private information about other people, he will publicly accuse them of hurting him and will ask for emotional support, sometimes in the form of letters, from people who believe in him. This leaves the people he is attacking or wrongly exposing publicly feeling isolated, publicly humiliated, and without support while they watch John receive accolades and public love. This is public emotional abuse.

John will also isolate people he has previously been friends with by cutting them off from the online communities he has power over through his status as a public figure or his admin authority. If they complain, he minimizes their complaints and states that he has the right to control the organization he leads. People don't dare stand up to him because he has so much popularity and power and because they realize that if they do, they will also become a victim of his tactics. The irony is staggering.

When people complain about the harm that is being done to them, John accuses them of playing victim and not taking responsibility for their own lives. He copies several people on the emails where he makes the accusations causing humiliation and shame in the person who receives the castigation.

These are some reasons why there are so many people who used to support him who are now very angry. They have been on the receiving end of these intimidation strategies. When they speak up, however, they are often castigated or shamed for speaking against someone who has done so much good for women and gay people. This isolates his victims even more. He will call them names publicly and will attempt to get the people who follow him to team with him against his victims. Sometimes his victims are unlikable. Sometimes they just seem unlikable when they are trying to stand up for themselves against someone who does not seem to have a conscience. Many people have been very hurt by these intentional strategies.

__________

SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS ABOUT HIS PERSONAL BENEFICENCE:

While John takes the above actions against his local leadership, his enemies, his competitors and his ex-friends, he speaks about the good works he is doing and the many great things he is accomplishing and intends to accomplish for humanity. He writes long resumes of his positive actions towards others. He speaks about "family" and ideals that are ubiquitously supported and lauded by many people in his audience. This covers the harm he is perpetrating against individuals and helps him gain sympathy for the wrongs he says he is a victim of even though he is intentionally provoking the actions being taken against him.

_________

THE OUTCOME FOR EACH PARTY IN THIS INSTANCE:

John Dehlin: POSITIVE -- Excommunication with the public record stating the was excommunicated for social rights causes. This will bring him martyrdom and increase his popularity and income. He will be seen as a victim-hero.

The Media: POSITIVE -- The media is looking for sensational stories that get clicks and sell ads. John is giving them that. They will continue to report as long as there is an interesting story to tell. John knows how to make a story.

The Church and the Church PR Department: NEGATIVE -- There is no good outcome for the church; this is a losing battle. The church is a young, conservative, sexist and heterosexist religion that has a history of polygamy and deceiving and controlling their members. In the internet age, they lose no matter what. Tithing dollars are going to go down and the world is going to leave the church behind. The younger generations of Mormons are going to be more and more attracted to people like John Dehlin regardless. The second coming will not happen next month, year, decade or millennium because, in reality, the BOM is a 19th-century document and the beliefs Mormons share come from many places in our cultural and historical past that are propagated through conditioning rather than god.

The Public: NEGATIVE -- Unless they become more self-aware and aware of how John, the Church, the Church PR Department and the media are seeking to influence them for their own gain, they will make personal decisions based on the environment all the parties with media control have over them. Members of the public can mitigate this negativity by becoming more cognizant of how they are being manipulated by all the parties above and by making more informed decisions. This will give members of the public more control over their own lives and, consequently, more happiness. Hopefully.

John's Local Leadership: NEGATIVE -- John's local leadership will have their private communications with John misrepresented to the public by John. Their written letters will be presented out of context of their communications with John. They will be blamed in history for going against women's rights and LGBT rights because John will take credit for supporting those causes. The Church will publicize that local leaders are responsible for John's discipline. Social activists will accentuate "leadership roulette" and John's leaders will be considered the worst kinds of leaders.

WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST ACTIONS FOR HIS LOCAL LEADERSHIP TO TAKE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THE VICTIMS:

Disfellowshipment -- this empowers John less and makes his local leadership look less vicious. It takes care of the church's need to take action against someone who is causing them problems and therefore takes pressure off of them from above. It lets the air out of John's desires for excommunication by not giving him what he wants and what will give him martyrdom status.

If they give John written letters that state apostasy as the cause of the discipline (that John will be pressured to publish even though they won't say what John wants them to say), they will be partially protected from being blamed in history for begin sexist and heterosexist (although there is no way for them to protect themselves from that accusation now). Apostasy is a pretty bunk charge in 2015 and they'll get public accusations for socially excluding John, but those accusations will be less harmful to them in the future than will John's claim that he was disciplined for helping fighting against women and gay people. Anything they can do to protect themselves from John's claim of his own beneficence and, then, their corresponding maleficence will help them.

Then, it would be in their best interest to ignore John in the future and not take his fake repentances seriously anymore. Learning the lesson that there are some people who are manipulating the system and then publicizing their manipulations can remove from them any guilt they might feel about wronging someone.

That said, excommunication would get him out of their hair long term, too. Not their problem anymore.

 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Ham Clam

[Coreyb]

The whole deal is just bad. I hope and pray for him but he is on a long dark road straight into the jaws of hell.

No matter what you think of him, it's just not nice to pass judgment like that

[Avatar4321]

No one knows of josephs polygamy? Do they not read the scriptures?

it's interesting that he says the book of Mormon Has so much evidence for it being a 19th century product because the more I study it the more obvious it becomes that it's exactly what it claims to be.

[Rob Osborn]

No matter what you think of him, it's just not nice to pass judgment like that

Ive seen this movie before, it always ends the same. I hope John can find repentace before its too late.

[Kevin Christensen]

Or they focus on hard TRUTHS without providing the best context or paradigms to make sense of the harder truths.

During the Coe interview, John asked whether there was any Mesoamerican evidence for iron arrow heads or brass helmets. When Coe said nope, John talked about this being hard truth for Mormons to swallow. When I posted that the Book of Mormon never mentions iron arrowheads or brass helmets, John boldly deleted my comments.

John is all about image, not reality, about controlling appearances, public posturing, not about honest inquiry into the knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.

He talks a lot about facing hard truths, but he's not serious about inquiry. After enduring a half dozen Mormon Stories interviews, I gave up because I couldn't abide his studied ignorance. I'd get too wound-up. My "Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique" essay at FARMS came about after I listened to his interview with William Russell, and I did some follow-up reading. Russell (one of Dehlin's heroes) I found, was wrong about everything with respect to the Book of Mormon. The reason that Dehlin does not know this is because public posturing is much easier than actual inquiry. Image making is easier than exploration. Several decades ago, I learned that when people put a premium on their capacity to publically face the hard truth that an inevitable side effect is that anything that reduces or alters the significance of such hard truths also changes the significance of the public posturing. Indeed, in the case of the iron arrow heads and brass helmets, the reality of the situation makes Dehlin and Coe seem more like ignorant buffoons rather than courageous explorers. What Dehlin calls open discussion involves a great deal of selection and censorship.

But of course, as Maverick's dear old Pappy used to say, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, and those are pretty good odds." (From "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres.")

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 2, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Ferdinand55]

My guess is that Dehlin will appeal to the First Presidency, in order to prolong the attention that he is receiving from the media.

 

Who else agrees?

[Avatar4321]

My guess is that Dehlin will appeal to the First Presidency, in order to prolong the attention that he is receiving from the media.

 

Who else agrees?

too early to tell but it wouldn't surprise me. Of course the Lord could still act to invite him to repent.

[Tacenda]

During the Coe interview, John asked whether there was any Mesoamerican evidence for iron arrow heads or brass helmets. When Coe said nope, John talked about this being hard truth for Mormons to swallow. When I posted that the Book of Mormon never mentions iron arrowheads or brass helmets, John boldly deleted my comments.

John is all about image, not reality, about controlling appearances, public posturing, not about honest inquiry into the knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.

He talks a lot about facing hard truths, but he's not serious about inquiry. After enduring a half dozen Mormon Stories interviews, I gave up because I couldn't abide his studied ignorance. I'd get too wound-up. My "Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique" essay at FARMS came about after I listened to his interview with William Russell, and I did some follow-up reading. Russell (one of Dehlin's heroes) I found, was wrong about everything with respect to the Book of Mormon. The reason that Dehlin does not know this is because public posturing is much easier than actual inquiry. Image making is easier than exploration. Several decades ago, I learned that when people put a premium on their capacity to publically face the hard truth that an inevitable side effect is that anything that reduces or alters the significance of such hard truths also changes the significance of the public posturing. Indeed, in the case of the iron arrow heads and brass helmets, the reality of the situation makes Dehlin and Coe seem more like ignorant buffoons rather than courageous explorers. What Dehlin calls open discussion involves a great deal of selection and censorship.

But of course, as Maverick's dear old Pappy used to say, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, and those are pretty good odds." (From "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres.")

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

You mention John got two things wrong, but fail to mention here, that he and others like Dr. Coe mention, got right.  Though I admire you for standing up for the BoM, it's what you believe in.  If what you say is true and John didn't come clean and just deleted your comment, that isn't cool, wish he had more integrity than that.  But OTOH, why don't you address the things that are anachronistic in the BoM?  Maybe because there are too many to count.  I remember downloading a few pages of them.  I think I hid them from myself.  But I'm sure Fair has addressed them to the best of their ability, I'll have to go back and read it.

 

ETA:  Just saw this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon  Did you write about these?  This needs another thread or we can look at older posts, I'm sure there are zillions.  

Edited February 2, 2015 by Tacenda