Dehlin, Reel, And Other Do-Gooders Asking For Money To Do...good.

[HappyJackWagon]

So it is emotional abuse to learn that JS had a gun at Carthage and you were not taught that in primary?

 

Talk about trivializing real abuse.

 

 

How can anyone claim abuse from the church? What specifically is abusive that the church does?

Nice strawman. No one argued that, but good job knocking it down.

[jkwilliams]

 I see the Church as above reproach, It's mortal members, including myself, not so much. However I don't see the Church as deliberately withholding necessary information. IE; Does it really matter to my, or any living person's, salvation if JS had 2 or 33 wives, that David had Saul's wives? Not really. Some people were offended by what Jesus taught during his mortal ministry, and refused to follow him anymore. Jesus even remarked on it when he asked if "will you not also go away?". I don't believe we can or should base our religion on what may or may not offend someone else. I don't believe in being a jerk about it either. IE; Not telling someone the hot soldering iron next them was moved. All that being said we do have a personal responsibility for our own learning. Back in dinosaur days when I was in school we were given books to read that generally reinforced and added to what the teachers said. Come test time it did little to no good to claim the teacher didn't personally teach something as a excuse for not passing the test.

 

It matters to people's salvation if those issues cause them to question and turn away from the church. No, you can't predict what is going to be troubling to everyone, but what you can do is try to help them through it when it happens. Saying, "That shouldn't bother you because it isn't relevant to your salvation" helps about as much as saying, "You shouldn't be upset because you would have known about this if you'd been more diligent in your study." 

 

Like I said, I have been watching some church members openly taunting those who have left or are struggling. Does anyone think that helps? I get contacted all the time from struggling members, many of whom are in real pain and despair. I listen to them and try to help (and yes, sometimes that involves helping them work out a misunderstanding about the church). I don't spend even a second on the blame. It doesn't matter. 

[HappyJackWagon]

I think it can be harmful (but I would not call it abusive) to promote this analogy as it gives, imo, an unrealistic and unhealthy view of the Church and its relationship to members.

But just because YOU wouldn't call it abusive doesn't mean it doesn't feel abusive to others. Saying it is NOT abusive because you don't see it that was is dismissing the perceived abuse of others without saying why you don't find the examples to be abusive.

 

The examples Bill used were things like, banning families from experiencing temple and priesthood blessings based on race. To me it seems reasonable to view that kind of harm as abusive. I recognize others won't view it the same way but it would be helpful to know why they don't view it as abusive. That may be why Bill was asking you the specific questions

[Calm]

Rick Turley, who is now Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, reminded me of an important point several years ago.

 

There had been a Mormon History Association tour of the Mountain Meadows site, and I had written a story about it. Rick was helping me edit it. At one point, he suggested that if something cannot be adequately explained in the space (or time) allotted, it is better not to introduce it at all rather than to risk conveying an incomplete or false message. (I hasten to add that this was a relatively minor point in the Mountain Meadows scenario, and it would not have been deceptive or misleading to leave it out of my report.)

 

I think that rationale, which is certainly reasonable, often drives the decision as to whether or not to include a point of information when discussing Church history or doctrine. It is not dishonest or wrong -- or abusive -- to forgo discussing something if it cannot be properly or adequately explained under the circumstances.

I think this is the approach of any wise teacher (and I think I made it above too, so I like seeing my position confirmed by two illustrious individuals ).

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that we should be proactive in seeking knowledge. Heaven knows I was (and look where it got me). But I don't find it helpful in the least to say to people, "You shouldn't be upset by x, y, or z, because you should have been proactive and sought such knowledge beforehand." Who cares what they should have done? They find themselves now in a situation where they are troubled by information they didn't know before. Should we help them with their troubles, or is it important to "set the record straight" and make sure they accept blame before we do anything to help them? 

When you were pontificating about this the other day, I wanted to respond but couldn't because I was at the FairMormon Conference, and my iPod touch had run out of battery power.

 

What I wanted to say then was that if I am in a one-on-one counseling situation trying to help or reclaim a friend, loved one or a ward member, my approach is of necessity going to be different than it is, say, when I am defending the Church of Jesus Christ against unjust strident attack by strangers in public, as I often find myself doing on this board.

 

In the latter situation, my priority concern is the interest of the unseen lurker who might be vulnerable to being misled by such attacks unless they are countered.

[jkwilliams]

When you were pontificating about this the other day, I wanted to respond but couldn't because I was at the FairMormon Conference, and my iPod touch had run out of battery power.

 

What I wanted to say then was that if I am in a one-on-one counseling situation trying to help or reclaim a friend, loved one or a ward member, my approach is of necessity going to be different than it is, say, when I am defending the Church of Jesus Christ against unjust strident attack by strangers in public, as I often find myself doing on this board.

 

In the latter situation, my priority concern is the interest of the unseen lurker who might be vulnerable to being misled by such attacks unless they are countered.

 

If people are upset by something they didn't know before, countering an attack of "blame" isn't going to help them, whether they are lurking here or one-on-one with you. You may think I'm pontificating, and that's fine, as I can be pompous and annoying. I am just sharing my experience as someone who gets a lot of contacts from struggling Mormons and who genuinely wants to help. In my experience, spending any time on blame (either blaming the church or the individual) is pointless and keeps us from talking about the real issues, the ones that are causing them pain and distress. 

[HappyJackWagon]

When you were pontificating about this the other day, I wanted to respond but couldn't because I was at the FairMormon Conference, and my iPod touch had run out of battery power.

 

What I wanted to say then was that if I am in a one-on-one counseling situation trying to help or reclaim a friend, loved one or a ward member, my approach is of necessity going to be different than it is, say, when I am defending the Church of Jesus Christ against unjust strident attack by strangers in public, as I often find myself doing on this board.

 

In the latter situation, my priority concern is the interest of the unseen lurker who might be vulnerable to being misled by such attacks unless they are countered.

As someone who lurked and participated on boards like FairMormon support, I'll just mention that the strident attacks against critics made by people who took a similar approach to yours did much more to drive me away than it did convince me that I should listen to them. Apologists at FairMormon did much more harm to my testimony with their harshness than people sharing different ideas. Just sayin... The approach you describe with people you care about is probably much more effective, even on a board with anonymous people you don't care about.

[jkwilliams]

As someone who lurked and participated on boards like FairMormon support, I'll just mention that the strident attacks against critics made by people who took a similar approach to yours did much more to drive me away than it did convince me that I should listen to them. Apologists at FairMormon did much more harm to my testimony with their harshness than people sharing different ideas. Just sayin... The approach you describe with people you care about is probably much more effective, even on a board with anonymous people you don't care about.

 

Of course, you know this is just an anti-Mormon chestnut.

 

In all seriousness, when people get treated that way (and they do), they come to me next, and I have no vested interest in keeping people in the church. My goals are to help people get through the pain and stress of their faith crisis. If they are able to do that and go back to the church, that's fine with me (and I have helped several people work out issues and maintain their belief and activity in the church). If they feel they need to walk away from the church to be happy, that's also fine.

[Scott Lloyd]

If people are upset by something they didn't know before, countering an attack of "blame" isn't going to help them, whether they are lurking here or one-on-one with you. You may think I'm pontificating, and that's fine, as I can be pompous and annoying. I am just sharing my experience as someone who gets a lot of contacts from struggling Mormons and who genuinely wants to help. In my experience, spending any time on blame (either blaming the church or the individual) is pointless and keeps us from talking about the real issues, the ones that are causing them pain and distress. 

For some people, the "real issues" may include whether or not the Church actually is guilty of intentional deception. In that regard, it can be important to point out, for example, that the Church never did hide the fact that Joseph had a pistol at Carthage, but on the contrary, displayed it in full view for everyone to see at its flagship museum at its Salt Lake City headquarters.

[Scott Lloyd]

As someone who lurked and participated on boards like FairMormon support, I'll just mention that the strident attacks against critics made by people who took a similar approach to yours did much more to drive me away than it did convince me that I should listen to them. Apologists at FairMormon did much more harm to my testimony with their harshness than people sharing different ideas. Just sayin... The approach you describe with people you care about is probably much more effective, even on a board with anonymous people you don't care about.

And I will counter your anecdotal example with my own as one who has been greatly helped over the years by solid rebuttals from apologists (and apologetics boards, FairMormon chief among the rest) to the unjust attacks and sophistry of antagonists against the Church of Jesus Christ. I have to believe that there are many, many others who have been similarly helped.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

For some people, the "real issues" may include whether or not the Church actually is guilty of intentional deception. In that regard, it can be important to point out, for example, that the Church never did hide the fact that Joseph had a pistol at Carthage, but on the contrary, displayed it in full view for everyone to see at its flagship museum at its Salt Lake City headquarters.

 

I've been at the library and seen that (of course, the vast majority of Mormons haven't). If the issue is, "The church hid stuff from me," then sure, it might be a good idea to discuss why they feel that way, but I haven't met many people for whom that is the main issue. And besides, how does one say with any certainty that the church didn't hide anything intentionally for good or bad reasons? At best, one can say that a few of these issues have been discussed on rare occasions, and say, "I understand why you feel that was deceptive or manipulative or whatever, but let's talk about what is really bothering you." That's my approach, and it works for me. 

[jkwilliams]

And I will counter your anecdotal example with my own as one who has been greatly helped over the years by solid rebuttals from apologists (and apologetics boards, FairMormon chief among the rest) to the unjust attacks and sophistry of antagonists against the Church of Jesus Christ. I have to believe that there are many, many others who have been similarly helped.

 

I'm sure you have helped people, but it's probably a good thing to understand that there are more than a few people whose experience has been similar to HJW's. Like I said, when they get treated that way, they come to me. Wouldn't you rather have them work through their issues in a positive way with people like you than to have them fall into the clutches of an evil apostate like me who will use all kinds of unjust attacks and sophistry to pull them out of the church?

[stemelbow]

For some people, the "real issues" may include whether or not the Church actually is guilty of intentional deception. In that regard, it can be important to point out, for example, that the Church never did hide the fact that Joseph had a pistol at Carthage, but on the contrary, displayed it in full view for everyone to see at its flagship museum at its Salt Lake City headquarters.

Just don't go to Carthage itself and ask the trained missionaries about the actual events including the pistol.

[thesometimesaint]

It matters to people's salvation if those issues cause them to question and turn away from the church. No, you can't predict what is going to be troubling to everyone, but what you can do is try to help them through it when it happens. Saying, "That shouldn't bother you because it isn't relevant to your salvation" helps about as much as saying, "You shouldn't be upset because you would have known about this if you'd been more diligent in your study." 

 

Like I said, I have been watching some church members openly taunting those who have left or are struggling. Does anyone think that helps? I get contacted all the time from struggling members, many of whom are in real pain and despair. I listen to them and try to help (and yes, sometimes that involves helping them work out a misunderstanding about the church). I don't spend even a second on the blame. It doesn't matter. 

 

I know of one couple who left the Church because the Church changed the names of its magazines. What could anyone possibly say to them that would help them understand changing the name of magazines is of so little import to their salvation?

 

I'm not taunting their emotions that would be cruel, and counterproductive, on my part. I am questioning the basis for those emotions. IE; If one knows that polygamy has been practiced in religions, including Christianity, and cultures around the world for millennia. It takes much of the sting out of the 19th Century Mormonism practice of it.

[stemelbow]

I've been at the library and seen that (of course, the vast majority of Mormons haven't). If the issue is, "The church hid stuff from me," then sure, it might be a good idea to discuss why they feel that way, but I haven't met many people for whom that is the main issue. And besides, how does one say with any certainty that the church didn't hide anything intentionally for good or bad reasons? At best, one can say that a few of these issues have been discussed on rare occasions, and say, "I understand why you feel that was deceptive or manipulative or whatever, but let's talk about what is really bothering you." That's my approach, and it works for me.

Blaming or not blaming the Church is tough because the Church is many people. To some their youth leaders who taught them were just as much the Church as the Church Historian.

[Brian 2.0]

So it is emotional abuse to learn that JS had a gun at Carthage and you were not taught that in primary?

 

Talk about trivializing real abuse.

 

I'm bookmarking this as a great example if I ever need to explain the concept of a strawman.  So clear and concise.  

[stemelbow]

I know of one couple who left the Church because the Church changed the names of its magazines. What could anyone possibly say to them that would help them understand changing the name of magazines is of so little import to their salvation?

 

I'm not taunting their emotions that would be cruel, and counterproductive, on my part. I am questioning the basis for those emotions. IE; If one knows that polygamy has been practiced in religions, including Christianity, and cultures around the world for millennia. It takes much of the sting out of the 19th Century Mormonism practice of it.

Ask them now why they left and it probably will have nothing to do with changing the names of the magazines.

[jkwilliams]

I know of one couple who left the Church because the Church changed the names of its magazines. What could anyone possibly say to them that would help them understand changing the name of magazines is of so little import to their salvation?

 

I'm not taunting their emotions that would be cruel, and counterproductive, on my part. I am questioning the basis for those emotions. IE; If one knows that polygamy has been practiced in religions, including Christianity, and cultures around the world for millennia. It takes much of the sting out of the 19th Century Mormonism practice of it.

 

It sounds to me like your default position is that their issues with the church are not only silly but already so hardened that you can't help. I cannot think of a more counterproductive approach, well, other than the taunting I've been seeing the last few days. 

 

It hurts to have your worldview collapse, even just a little, and it sure doesn't help when people trivialize what you're going through. I know that's not your intent, but that is how it comes across. Not long before we left Utah, my wife ran into my mission president, a man I have always admired and loved, while she was out shopping. He asked her about me, and she explained my situation. He asked for some specifics, and when she said a few things she understood, he laughed and said, "Well, that's just silly. You tell him to call me right away and I'll straighten him out!" I can't tell you how much that hurt. Obviously, it hurts less when it's a stranger online, but still. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been at the library and seen that (of course, the vast majority of Mormons haven't).

 

Not the library. The Church History Museum. The Church History Library is a separate facility, as is the Family History Library, which is adjacent to the Church History Museum.

 

But the point is, it can't be said that the Church covers up the fact Joseph had a pistol, when it displays the very pistol to the public in its museum. And even if one never gets to the library, a photo of the pistol has been published for many years in the CES manual Church History in the Fulness of Times.

 

It is simply untenable to claim the Church has covered up the fact that Joseph had and used a smuggled pistol in his defense against the mob that stormed the jail at Carthage.

 

 

If the issue is, "The church hid stuff from me," then sure, it might be a good idea to discuss why they feel that way, but I haven't met many people for whom that is the main issue.

 

If it's not the main issue, then I grant that there's not much point in discussing it. For some, though, it is obviously a major point of contention.

 

And besides, how does one say with any certainty that the church didn't hide anything intentionally for good or bad reasons? At best, one can say that a few of these issues have been discussed on rare occasions, and say, "I understand why you feel that was deceptive or manipulative or whatever, but let's talk about what is really bothering you." That's my approach, and it works for me. 

 

 

If I don't know that a person or entity is guilty of wrongdoing, I don't accuse him or it. That's just being fair.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just don't go to Carthage itself and ask the trained missionaries about the actual events including the pistol.

I've been to Carthage several times, and have never had a missionary deny that Joseph used a pistol. I'm sorry your experience has been less than optimal.

[thesometimesaint]

Ask them now why they left and it probably will have nothing to do with changing the names of the magazines.

 

That is what they claimed to me as I sat in their living room.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm bookmarking this as a great example if I ever need to explain the concept of a strawman.  So clear and concise.  

Is it? He claims that if people claim it causes them harm then it is abusive. Some people have claimed that first learning that JS had a gun was the first straw. That caused them harm to their testimony.

 

So was that abusive ?

 

Can you answer it?

 

No straw involved. Its called connecting the dots to see were the break down occurs.

 

BTW I asked a question. I did not attempt to argue against a position no on holds. All he had to say was "no".

Edited August 12, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jkwilliams]

Not the library. The Church History Museum. The Church History Library is a separate facility, as is the Family History Library, which is adjacent to the Church History Museum.

You're right, I misspoke. I've been to both.

 

But the point is, it can't be said that the Church covers up the fact Joseph had a pistol, when it displays the very pistol to the public in its museum. And even if one never gets to the library, a photo of the pistol has been published for many years in the CES manual Church History in the Fulness of Times.

 

It is simply untenable to claim the Church has covered up the fact that Joseph had and used a smuggled pistol in his defense against the mob that stormed the jail at Carthage.

I'm not on record as saying they've hidden much of anything, just to remind you. But if that is the main issue, then it should be approached carefully and empathetically. Why do they feel this way, and how can we help? "It's your fault, not the church's" is a non-starter.

 

If it's not the main issue, then I grant that there's not much point in discussing it. For some, though, it is obviously a major point of contention.

 

If I don't know that a person or entity is guilty of wrongdoing, I don't accuse him or it. That's just being fair.

IF someone does feel that way, shouldn't you try to find out why they do?

[Scott Lloyd]

Ask them now why they left and it probably will have nothing to do with changing the names of the magazines.

Once someone has left, they will likely seize upon and compile all manner of pretexts for their departure.

 

That's just human nature.

[Brian 2.0]

Is it? He claims that if people claim it causes them harm then it is abusive. Some people have claimed that first learning that JS had a gun was the first straw. That caused them harm to their testimony.

 

So was that abusive ?

 

Can you answer it?

 

No straw involved. Its called connecting the dots to see were the break down occurs.

 

BTW I asked a question. I did not attempt to argue against a position no on holds. All he had to say was "no".

 

 

These are the questions he asked when referring to harmful and possible "abusive"

 

Now I will ask you a few questions

Are you comfortable with the racist things our leaders said in the past?  Do you think it harmed anyone?

Are you comfortable with Pres Marion G Romney saying it is better that his kids come home from their mission in a casket rather than having lost their virtue?   Could that teaching have harmed anyone?

Do you think President Kimball teaching that gay can be fixed and masturbation leads to being gay was harmful?

 

 

Instead of using any of these you used the gun and carthage.  Replace the gun at carthage in your post with any of the above Bill was actually using and your post would sound quite a bit different.