Apologetic attacks

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well thanks for responding.  I didn't want to seem like I was being harsh on you for your opinion.  Hopefully I don't get harsh. 

Yes, let me be clear about Scott's presentation--from what I saw, I was not impressed.  It was pretty weak overall and the purpose amounted to pointlessness to me. 

I agree, Dehlin believes in God and Scott spoke presumptuously--which is problematic.  But really the only response need on that is Dehlin to say, I do believe in God.  I can't see any reason to think that there is smear involved in that.

I'll disagree about characterizing Mormonstories--the issues mostly are social in nature.  I saw his reference to gay marriage and women as examples of what he meant by social--not suggesting that the site focuses on those two topics.  But that leaves room for plenty of historic and doctrinal issues, as well. 

What is telling from this, for me is, generally speaking, we aren't being very fair to each other.  Scott did not smear John, not in the least, at least in my view.  Scott did not give John enough notice to even get his belief in God right--which itself is a slap in the face.  I just find the state of our communication pretty poor.  On this site we seem to do better as we discuss controversial topics, even if we get dramatic and over-react as well. 

We can let the facts stand for themselves with respect to how he characterized Mormon Stories.  Here is the complete list of podcast episodes, it is incorrect to describe this list as focusing on social issues.  The list can be found at http://www.mormonstories.org/episodes-list-chronological/.

Episodes List (Chronological)

Pages of topics deleted. Link is given.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

We can let the facts stand for themselves with respect to how he characterized Mormon Stories.  Here is the complete list of podcast episodes, it is incorrect to describe this list as focusing on social issues.  The list can be found at http://www.mormonstories.org/episodes-list-chronological/.

Episodes List (Chronological)

 

625-626: Surviving Reparative Therapy with Alex Cooper, “Saving Alex” Author

629: Mormons and Colonization with Edyka Chilome

630: Black Mormon Lives Matter

631-633: Tyler Glenn of Neon Trees

634: Clay Christensen Threatened with Excommunication for his Podcast Interview

635: Mormons Respond to Tyler Glenn’s Controversial “Trash” Music Video

636: Rape in Mormon Culture

637: The Mama Dragons and the Mama Dragon Story Project

BONUS: Reply All Podcast Episode #55 – “The Line”

638-639: Dr. Thomas Murphy on the Book of Mormon, DNA, His Cancelled Disciplinary Council, and Native American Anthropology

Summer 2016 Mormon Transitions Events: Salt Lake City/Park City, Dallas, Los Angeles/Las Vegas

640: Staying Active in the LDS Church as an Unorthodox Member

641: Grieving Together: Processing the Recent (and Continual) Loss of Black Lives in America

I don't know, if we zero in on the last 15, for instance, I see 14 social issued focused with one more DNA focused with a touch of social issue.  It may be true that since Mormonstories started it has been into different issues, I'd say the focus of late is more social and that's why it didn't ring as inaccurate to me.  I'd say it's at least arguable.  I don't know that it's fair to say it's outright inaccurate.  But, then again, I think he could have done better if he intended to describe it with purpose and meaning. 

[Mystery Meat]

I am not really a fan of apologetics. It seems the natural reaction by TBM's like myself is to see those defending the Kingdom of God as an official extension of the Kingdom of God itself. Fortunately, any bad actions on their part are not a reflection of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel. Misrepresentations should be discouraged, especially when made in bad faith. 

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So you're not a fan for fanfare?

I am not a fan of fans of fan fiction.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And yet he was still wrong.

You state this solely because you believe Dehlin has no reason to lie and/or wouldn't lie.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Is he being inaccurate about Meldrum too?  I dont' know enough about Meldrum and his position to know. 

"too" implies he's wrong about Dehlin.  That has not been established.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

You state this solely because you believe Dehlin has no reason to lie and/or wouldn't lie.

About what he believes concerning the existence of God?  Are you saying Scott had reason to conclude Dehlin doesn't believe in the existence of God?  Isn't Dehlin the authority on what he believes? 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't get what you're saying.  Scott claimed Dehlin doesn't believe in God.  Dehlin says he does and Scott spoke presumptuously.  I don't know how we argue that Scott was right about it.  He might have felt justified in it, but obviously he was wrong.  If that be the case it's hard to see it as anything other than Scott speaking presumptuously in describing another's beliefs.  Not a big deal, if you ask me.  But it seems clear that's what happened. 

It's only presumptuous if Scott didn't hear that from Dehlin or that that was a fair conclusion to reach from what Dehlin said to him.

Dehlin has reason to lie and has done so publicly.  Scott  ...  not so much.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know, if we zero in on the last 15, for instance, I see 14 social issued focused with one more DNA focused with a touch of social issue.  It may be true that since Mormonstories started it has been into different issues, I'd say the focus of late is more social and that's why it didn't ring as inaccurate to me.  I'd say it's at least arguable.  I don't know that it's fair to say it's outright inaccurate.  But, then again, I think he could have done better if he intended to describe it with purpose and meaning. 

I agree that Dehlin and MS has moved into more social territory lately.  But Scott described MS in general, not the most recent 15 episodes.  Additionally, to describe 14 of those as "social issue focused" tells me that you haven't actually listened to them.  There is a lot more there.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

"too" implies he's wrong about Dehlin.  That has not been established.

I don't know what more to say about it.  Scott says, "Dehlin doesn't believe in God".  Dehlin says, "yes I do".  You seem to want more than that.  I don't.  Have fun.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You state this solely because you believe Dehlin has no reason to lie and/or wouldn't lie.

I state this because the published facts disagree with what Scott said regarding Dehlin's belief in God and the content of MormonStories.org.  Scott is demonstrably wrong on both accounts.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's only presumptuous if Scott didn't hear that from Dehlin or that that was a fair conclusion to reach from what Dehlin said to him.

Dehlin has reason to lie and has done so publicly.  Scott  ...  not so much.

I wouldn't have called it a "lie" but if you are going to use that word, than yes, Scott has lied publicly in his presentation.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, there's always that old saying: 

Cet animal est très méchant: Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

C'est ci vrais.

[USU78]

Just now, rockpond said:

I wouldn't have called it a "lie" but if you are going to use that word, than yes, Scott has lied publicly in his presentation.

Prove it.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's only presumptuous if Scott didn't hear that from Dehlin or that that was a fair conclusion to reach from what Dehlin said to him.

Dehlin has reason to lie and has done so publicly.  Scott  ...  not so much.

So Dehlin is fabricating his belief in God so he can say Scott made up the claim that Dehlin doesn't believe in God? 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I state this because the published facts disagree with what Scott said regarding Dehlin's belief in God and the content of MormonStories.org.  Scott is demonstrably wrong on both accounts.

Published by Dehlin himself, which publication is, apparently, at odds with what Dehlin stated to Scott in private.

That doesn't make it a fact.  At best it makes it a claim at odds with somebody else's claim concerning the same subject matter.

Dang you jump to the defense of the hardly defenseless in a hurry, especially where in this case the hardly defenseless happens to have a grossly critical view of all matters Mormon.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Published by Dehlin himself, which publication is, apparently, at odds with what Dehlin stated to Scott in private.

That doesn't make it a fact.  At best it makes it a claim at odds with somebody else's claim concerning the same subject matter.

Dang you jump to the defense of the hardly defenseless in a hurry, especially where in this case the hardly defenseless happens to have a grossly critical view of all matters Mormon.

So you are alleging that Scott is saying the Dehlin told him privately, "even though I say I believe in God, I really don't"?  I didn't hear Scott say that.  Was it via email?  Because apparently the extent of their interactions has been a few emails. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you are alleging that Scott is saying the Dehlin told him privately, "even though I say I believe in God, I really don't"?  I didn't hear Scott say that.  Was it via email?  Because apparently the extent of their interactions has been a few emails. 

I've never heard John Dehlin say publicly or privately that he doesn't believe in God. In fact, he has told me privately that he does believe in God. I couldn't care less whether or not he believes or doesn't, so I assume he had no motive to lie to me. On the other hand, it strains credulity to believe that the one person he would confide in is Scott Gordon. 

Maybe Scott misunderstood him, or something. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Prove it.

The homepage of MormonStories.org currently provides several past published quotes of Dehlin professing his belief in God.

I have already provided the episode list (also available on MormonStories.org) that shows the content of MS is not what Scott claims.

[cinepro]

I don't get what Dehlin is complaining about.  Here's what he said about his belief in God:

Quote

"John Dehlin: Yeah, regarding God? Ummm, I hope, I hope there is a God. I, I want there to be an afterlife. I’ve felt power and influence in my life before that has motivated me, and I consider myself a believer in God. But this does reflect doubts that I’ve had in my life and that’s why I think it’s a little bit taken out of context because if you... I’m not asking you to respond. Do you mind if I just share? Because some of these are kind of accusations.

Bryan King: Go ahead.

John Dehlin: So, I don’t think anybody actually knows that God exists. I think that people have feelings and emotions and they choose to describe their perspectives as knowledge—but that is semantics. Because I don’t think that anybody really knows. So, is that grounds for excommunication?"

http://mormonstories.wpengine.com/what-aspects-of-lds-church-teachingsdoctrine-do-you-still-believe-in-vs-not/

 

Believing that something could exist is not the same as believing something does exist.

For example, I fully acknowledge that Bigfoot could exist. But I do not believe that Bigfoot does exist. If someone were to say "Cinepro has long believed that there is no Bigfoot", would they be right?

Dehlin is simply delineating between agnostic acknowledgment of a possibility, and atheistic certitude. Neither are a statement of positive belief. Only theoretical and unknowable possibilities. Gordon may have overstepped and failed to couch his paraphrase of Dehlin's expressed disbelief with the humble waffling of the friendly agnostic, but it's hardly libelous or demanding of a response.

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by cinepro

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Published by Dehlin himself, which publication is, apparently, at odds with what Dehlin stated to Scott in private.

That doesn't make it a fact.  At best it makes it a claim at odds with somebody else's claim concerning the same subject matter.

Dang you jump to the defense of the hardly defenseless in a hurry, especially where in this case the hardly defenseless happens to have a grossly critical view of all matters Mormon.

What did Dehlin say to Scott in private?

There are numerous published quotes of Dehlin professing his belief in God.  Not to mention his current social media statements professing that belief.  Sorry, Scott is wrong.

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

About what he believes concerning the existence of God?  Are you saying Scott had reason to conclude Dehlin doesn't believe in the existence of God?  Isn't Dehlin the authority on what he believes? 

Let me put the following case, which I believe likely because of my experience with individuals of my acquaintance and closer than acquaintanceship.  Suppose somebody is committed to the religiopolitical position that Mormons are awful and the LDS Church awfuller yet.  Suppose that somebody seeks as a kind of calling to point out and advocate for those two positions.  Suppose yet again that the somebody deduces from watching others that claiming special authority like "true believer" or "4th generation" or "former bishop" strengthens his claims, especially among a certain admiring demographic:  the most virulent antiMormon I know is a relative who's a former bishop who was a closeted homosexual, pedophile (seducer or teenage boys), abusive, neglectful father and husband until he reached the age of 50, whereupon he outed himself quite publicly (and, incidentally, harmfully), and began a career as a compensated public advocate on homosexual and antiMormon issues.

This individual lies about everything under the sun.

Now, one can claim any d@mn fool thing one wishes, especially when the fool thing is unprovable and un-disprovable, like one's belief on X, Y or Z.  Doesn't make the claim true or untrue.  It just makes it a claim one makes for one's self.

I imagine that, assuming Scott doesn't back down from his claims for Dehlin, which I don't see happening, Dehlin either stated unequivicably or stated positions consistent only with his unbelief in G-d in Scott's presence.  Time will tell, as I imagine Scott is quite aware of Dehlin's present claim for himself.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't get what Dehlin is complaining about.  Here's what he said about his belief in God:

Believing that something could exist is not the same as believing something does exist.

For example, I fully acknowledge that Bigfoot could exist. But I do not believe that Bigfoot does exist. If someone were to say "Cinepro has long believed that there is no Bigfoot", would they be right?

Dehlin is simply delineating between agnostic acknowledgment of a possibility, and atheistic certitude. Neither are a statement of positive belief. Only theoretical and unknowable possibilities. Gordon may have overstepped and failed to couch his paraphrase of Dehlin's expressed disbelief with the humble waffling of the friendly agnostic, but it's hardly libelous or demanding of a response.

 

I'm probably about where Dehlin is, based on that statement, and I wouldn't consider myself an agnostic except in agreeing that, most likely, no one knows for certain that God exists. Sometimes my belief wanes to a simple desire to believe, but I have never lost that desire. But this thread did dredge up some Iris DeMent, which is always a good thing.

 

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe Scott misunderstood him, or something. 

That's possible.  Such things happen.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't get what Dehlin is complaining about.  Here's what he said about his belief in God:

Believing that something could exist is not the same as believing something does exist.

For example, I fully acknowledge that Bigfoot could exist. But I do not believe that Bigfoot does exist. If someone were to say "Cinepro has long believed that there is no Bigfoot", would they be right?

Dehlin is simply delineating between agnostic acknowledgment of a possibility, and atheistic certitude. Neither are a statement of positive belief. Only theoretical and unknowable possibilities. Gordon may have overstepped and failed to couch his paraphrase of Dehlin's expressed disbelief with the humble waffling of the friendly agnostic, but it's hardly libelous or demanding of a response.

 

Except the statement from Dehlin doesn't suggest, he believes God could exist, but he does not believe God does exist.  He only says he first part--that he thinks God could exist.  And he does say, I consider myself a believer in God, which argues against Scott's characterization of his not believing in God.