Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[Mystery Meat]

In the past, I have gotten frustrated with doubters (Tacenda included) for this, but see my reply to her, above.  Sadly, sound bite criticisms often are better at luring fence-sitters into disbelief than substantive responses to such criticisms are at persuading them to believe.  While it may be true that doubters are largely responsible for their plight, critics' recognition of the uneven playing field (along with their determination to take full advantage of it) deserve an enormous share of the blame, as well.

 

Your answer was better than mine. Mine showed a profound lack of charity. Tacenda, I apologize for my rudeness.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ah... he's definitely not the pioneer.  Nor is he the "content expert" on hard truths.  He just created the space for a lot of us to listen, learn, process, etc.  And I think he brought a lot of publicity to the issues.  Who else in Mormon history has received quite the same media attention, interview requests, etc.

Yeah that is exactly how I would sum it up

 

John asked whether there was any Mesoamerican evidence for iron arrow heads or brass helmets.

 

I was wondering when you would come in here and defend him.

 

Did you learn that " whether there was any Mesoamerican evidence for iron arrow heads or brass helmets". From listening to him?

[Kenngo1969]

This isn't intended as a criticism of you specifically and personally, Tacenda.  It's simply a general observation of one advantage enjoyed by doubters, critics, skeptics, the disaffected, et cetera (pick your word) over believers: unfortunately, sound bites are more effective at luring those who are on the fence into disbelief than substantive analysis is at persuading those who are on the fence to believe, but it's not possible to refute sound bite criticisms with sound bite rebuttals in return.  Critics know this, and they take full advantage of it.

 

 

[Referring to the above] I should have said it like this...

Don't worry; I've got your back.  

 

In other words:

 

A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

Yep.  Whatever it may cost me in the short run, though, I still hope to be on the side of truth in the long run.

[Calm]

Yeah that is exactly how I would sum it up

 

 

I was wondering when you would come in here and defend him.

 

Did you learn that " whether there was any Mesoamerican evidence for iron arrow heads or brass helmets". From listening to him?

I am confused, it was Kevin who mentioned the arrowheads and he wasn't defending Dehlin.

[stemelbow]

Ah... he's definitely not the pioneer.  Nor is he the "content expert" on hard truths.  He just created the space for a lot of us to listen, learn, process, etc.  And I think he brought a lot of publicity to the issues.  Who else in Mormon history has received quite the same media attention, interview requests, etc.

I guess in so doing, though, he's created a narrative to oppose the "church's narrative" he often talks about. And it makes him addressing the issues as he has very shallow. I think that's kind of the world we live in. Holding an opinion is more noble than accepting the possibility of the other's view, it seems.

I kind liked hearing from Kevin in asking about the things he claimed in his interview with Coe. It reminds me of all the times I've tried to comment on his podcasts and have been rejected for some reason or another. It's weird he speaks of not having a place to talk about his issues with Church, thus mormonstories, but then he seems to only want a certain voice participating. Most LDS would feel more alienated from his group as many of his followers feel from Church. We still don't have a very open place for discussing these.

[rockpond]

I am confused, it was Kevin who mentioned the arrowheads and he wasn't defending Dehlin.

 

Thanks, Cal.  I was confused by Mola's question.

[rockpond]

While it may be true that doubters are largely responsible for their plight, critics' recognition of the uneven playing field (along with their determination to take full advantage of it) deserve an enormous share of the blame, as well.

 

Does the Church get to shoulder any of the blame for the way it chose to present doctrine, policies, and narratives that later turn out to be damaging to members' faith?

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

I've seen him quoted as saying he will not.

 

Of course, this would not be the first time he changed his mind.

[rockpond]

I've seen him quoted as saying he will not.

 

Of course, this would not be the first time he changed his mind.

 

Since so many here view me as a defender of Dehlin, I'll go on record as saying that from what Dehlin has presented, I think the case for his excommunication is solid (though I hesitate to put a church disciplinary action in such legalistic terms, please pardon me for that -- I just don't know another way to say it).

 

For that reason, I can't imagine him trying to appeal.  But, as you said, it could happen.

[Mars]

Does the Church get to shoulder any of the blame for the way it chose to present doctrine, policies, and narratives that later turn out to be damaging to members' faith?

 

I dunno, man...  That's a tough one to unravel.

 

I think so and don't think so at the same time, haha.  How's that for resolution?

[stemelbow]

I've seen him quoted as saying he will not.

 

Of course, this would not be the first time he changed his mind.

I believe he said he would not but that he also doesn't want to be held to that. He may want to change his mind. But, appealing is his right. He should he feels it necessary.

[stemelbow]

Does the Church get to shoulder any of the blame for the way it chose to present doctrine, policies, and narratives that later turn out to be damaging to members' faith?

Sure.

Faith will always be damaged whether by difficult historical issues or not, though. Any particular individual, will, no doubt, have many reasons why he/she has damaged faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is she the one who regularly posts about her secret knowledge about him that she will someday disclose....but never does? Although I think she gave a good summation, she seems to see him as almost supernatural or something. Is there any instance of an exed member remaining influencial in any way?  Margaret Toscano is/was very influencial in OW...but she could only do it anonymously. Kate Kelly has disappeared like a shooting star over the horizon.

 

We have September Six, but that only proves the point. I'll bet no more than one in a hundred could name even some of them. The only thing that has influence is the meme not the people. Once Dehlin is exed, what is his draw? He is now in the huge pool of non-LDS who are for social justice and who have much higher profiles. At best, he will still be on the media's rolodex to give a sentence or two for the opposition in random church related articles that quickly disappear.

 

So is it possible that despite Dehlin's undeniable PR skills to date..... he is making a mistake in thinking his influence, which has been dependent on the credibility of being a member, will continue? Or will he be content to remain quietly in the background?

Every high-profile apostate-du-jour enjoys an intense flash of fame at the moment of his/her excommunication then quickly fades from sight. That has always been the case to date. Maybe things will be different with Dehlin, but there is no particular reason to think so that I can see.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I dunno, man...  That's a tough one to unravel.

 

I think so and don't think so at the same time, haha.  How's that for resolution?

Q: Do you have trouble arriving at decisions?

 

A: Well, yes and no.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since so many here view me as a defender of Dehlin, I'll go on record as saying that from what Dehlin has presented, I think the case for his excommunication is solid (though I hesitate to put a church disciplinary action in such legalistic terms, please pardon me for that -- I just don't know another way to say it).

 

For that reason, I can't imagine him trying to appeal.  But, as you said, it could happen.

I think "case" is an adequate way to put it.

 

I don't remember if it was in the "Trib Talk" interview or some other source, but within the past few days he said that for him to want to remain in the Church, a lot of things would have to change. I don't realistically see him appealing the action to the First Presidency and, at the same time, telling them that there's a lot in the Church that has to change for him to be desirous of remaining.

 

Edited to add: It was on this very thread, and the quote was from the NPR interview.

 

From the OP:

 

"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)

 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mars]

Q: Do you have trouble arriving at decisions?

 

A: Well, yes and no.

 

I just can't tell if it's apathy or ignorance.

 

I don't know and I don't care...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am confused, it was Kevin who mentioned the arrowheads and he wasn't defending Dehlin.

Never said Kevin did defend Dehlin.

 

I have seen rockpond defend Dehlin on multiple points as he is one that seems to listen to and agree with much of what he says.  My questions were specifically directed to Rockpond in sort of a taunting manner. Hopefully that makes sense now.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since so many here view me as a defender of Dehlin, I'll go on record as saying that from what Dehlin has presented, I think the case for his excommunication is solid (though I hesitate to put a church disciplinary action in such legalistic terms, please pardon me for that -- I just don't know another way to say it).

 

For that reason, I can't imagine him trying to appeal.  But, as you said, it could happen.

But you agree with much of what he says. I have seen you sing his praise. YOu even did that earlier in this thread.

 

I don't care weather you think his excommunication is justified, I noticed that you did not say that John is wrong on this and this and this points.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[why me]

I'm thinking he feels like he's created enough of a following to maintain his influence, at this point. none of the sept 6 nor Kate Kelly has set themselves up quite like he has in terms of being able to remain an influence. And that's ok, if you ask me. He brings up some topics of discussion that I think we can all benefit from. Not sure he's the best moderator on the topics from a believers perspective but then again who would be better?

I don't think that john has much influence. Once he is exed, his influence will disappear. First, he lost credibility with his supporters when he closed down the MS chapters and conferences and returned to church.These acts created some enemies. And now he is again out of the church, disbelieving in this and that. Why did he return if he did not believe? The flip flops were many and with each flip he flopped. When he is exed, he will drift away into the abyss. But he could be a spokesperson for the anti mormons. He may get some traction on RFM etc. But...among mormons, he has very little following now.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I too wish him well. The best I could hope for him is that he has an Alma-the-younger type of experience.

[Kenngo1969]

Does the Church get to shoulder any of the blame for the way it chose to present doctrine, policies, and narratives that later turn out to be damaging to members' faith?

That's a difficult question to answer.  Would that we lived in a world in which institutional blame for such things is so easily assignable, but, while your mileage probably varies, I don't think we do.  I don't think we were created simply to be "acted upon" passively (my phrase) by purportedly damaging "doctrine, policies, and narratives."  Rather, we must choose what action to take in light of them.  Neither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor most all of those who are individually responsible for its collective decisions in these matters sets out to damage faith of members.  Does one want to focus more on fixing the problem, or more on fixing the blame?  If one wants to focus more on fixing the problem, I believe, however he got to the point where he is, he has many of the tools and much of the power necessary to do so.

 

Yes, on an individual level, horrible things may have happened to me; yes, people may even have done horrible things to me (whether intentionally or inadvertently), even in the Church; no, none of that is easy to process or to work through.  But I once read that even many people who do horrible things are simply trying in unskillful ways to make their lives work.  If I can find enough courage to give even those who may have set out deliberately to hurt me the benefit of that doubt, then surely I can find enough courage to give a church and its leaders (the overwhelming majority of which would never dream of setting out deliberately to hurt me) the benefit of that doubt.

 

Whatever happens to me, or whatever I discover, or however such a discovery might affect my faith if I allow it to do so, even if I cannot choose my circumstances, I still can choose how I react to them.  In addiction and mental health recovery, once I: (1) realize I have a problem; (2) want help for it; and (3) believe I can be helped for it (among other things, that I was created to act rather than simply to be acted upon, then I, and I alone, become responsible for my recovery.  It may seem unfair to place the additional burden of being responsible for one's own recovery on the shoulders of someone who is dealing with a psychiatric diagnosis or a behavioral condition, but it's actually a tremendously empowering thing.  While the analogy may not be perfect, I think it's still largely applicable to someone who experiences a faith crisis: life is 10% (or less) what happens to us, and 90% (or more) how we choose to deal with it.

 

My $0.02.  I realize your mileage probably varies.  Any differences between us notwithstanding, I wish you well.

[rockpond]

That's a difficult question to answer.  Would that we lived in a world in which institutional blame for such things is so easily assignable, but, while your mileage probably varies, I don't think we do.  I don't think we were created simply to be "acted upon" passively (my phrase) by purportedly damaging "doctrine, policies, and narratives."  Rather, we must choose what action to take in light of them.  Neither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor most all of those who are individually responsible for its collective decisions in these matters sets out to damage faith of members.  Does one want to focus more on fixing the problem, or more on fixing the blame?  If one wants to focus more on fixing the problem, I believe, however he got to the point where he is, he has many of the tools and much of the power necessary to do so.

 

Yes, on an individual level, horrible things may have happened to me; yes, people may even have done horrible things to me (whether intentionally or inadvertently), even in the Church; no, none of that is easy to process or to work through.  But I once read that even many people who do horrible things are simply trying in unskillful ways to make their lives work.  If I can find enough courage to give even those who may have set out deliberately to hurt me the benefit of that doubt, then surely I can find enough courage to give a church and its leaders (the overwhelming majority of which would never dream of setting out deliberately to hurt me) the benefit of that doubt.

 

Whatever happens to me, or whatever I discover, or however such a discovery might affect my faith if I allow it to do so, even if I cannot choose my circumstances, I still can choose how I react to them.  In addiction and mental health recovery, once I: (1) realize I have a problem; (2) want help for it; and (3) believe I can be helped for it (among other things, that I was created to act rather than simply to be acted upon, then I, and I alone, become responsible for my recovery.  It may seem unfair to place the additional burden of being responsible for one's own recovery on the shoulders of someone who is dealing with a psychiatric diagnosis or a behavioral condition, but it's actually a tremendously empowering thing.  While the analogy may not be perfect, I think it's still largely applicable to someone who experiences a faith crisis: life is 10% (or less) what happens to us, and 90% (or more) how we choose to deal with it.

 

My $0.02.  I realize your mileage probably varies.  Any differences between us notwithstanding, I wish you well.

 

Can you fix the problem without accepting your share of the blame?

[rockpond]

But you agree with much of what he says. I have seen you sing his praise. YOu even did that earlier in this thread.

 

I don't care weather you think his excommunication is justified, I noticed that you did not say that John is wrong on this and this and this points.

 

Since we weren't discussing "this and this and this points" I'm not sure why I would have said that he is wrong.

 

You are welcome to ask me a specific question though.

[Ahab]

His council is this Sunday, I believe. It was delayed two weeks due to the death of the SP's father.

His name is on the records, he has not stated he is not a Mormon. Given those two conditions, I think he qualifies as a member at this point even if he is a nonbeliever according to his own statements.

Of course I'd rather that he stay in the program but if he's going to keep talking like he he's talking right now it would be best not to call him a Mormon anymore.

[pogi]

Can you fix the problem without accepting your share of the blame?

 

The church is actively working to fix the problem with the essays etc.  I think that this is evidence that they acknowledge their part, or at least acknowledge that they can be more effective in their approach.  They are adjusting, and that is all anyone can ask of them.  I think what kenngo is saying is that the church, nor Dehlin are to blame for personal apostasy - that is all on the individual.  "The devil made me do it" just isn't going to cut it at the day of judgment.