Apologetic attacks

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It seems like no matter whatever point that Scott was trying to put across, it could have been done without being so personal about it.  Overall, I think the whole thing is kind of sad and lacks human decency.

Yeah well Dehlin set himself up for this stuff when he made his personal life public. It's no big deal to be called an atheist it just represents a set of beliefs. I never had the time to listen to a bazillion podcasts but the way I hear it is John is all over the place with his beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that either, just don't be surprised when someone gets it wrong. I think this whole thread is much ado about nothing. People are so easy to be offended these days.

[USU78]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Like I said, I can't imagine getting riled up over any of this. But clearly, disliking Scott Gordon's tone is akin to character assassination.

Well, since his tone is perforce character assassination, you know, it stands to reason 

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well, since his tone is perforce character assassination, you know, it stands to reason 

Speaking only for myself, I don't think his tone was character assassination. I didn't like his tone, and I said so. As Calm mentioned, people can do and say and believe things that don't define their character, just as I don't believe a single presentation defines Scott Gordon's. 

I really did have a bit of an epiphany yesterday watching that presentation. I realized that a lot of people engaged in the apologetics-criticism battle consider it a deadly serious business, but I just can't anymore.

Edited July 14, 2016 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Pretty much spot on. An LDS friend who listened to the whole address said it was the worst FAIR presentation he had ever attended for precisely that reason. 

I will say, you've made a good point.  I view this as nothing more than a quick overview of 4 items and sources that he has an issue with--he the leader of FairMormon, a non-profit set up to address these very things.  I don't hear an angry tone at all.  When I ask for support for the angry tone I get nothing.  Considering the tone offered by these four, quite often, when addressing his group, his has an amazingly kind tone.  How someone reads hostility in the tone is odd to me. 

Somehow FAIRMormon summarizing MS as a place that focuses more on social issues and saying the head of MS does not believe in God is seen as telling people not to pay attention to it, but the tone found at MS regarding FAIRMormon is not to be mentioned. 

This suggests to me that you were right when it comes to finding no resolve here.  No matter what people will complain about the other side.  It's tough because I actually find myself agreeing with criticisms and making critical arguments against the Church and FAIRMormon so it'd be easy to just say they're bad and move on.  Somehow one side needs to be mature enough to not read a hostile tone into everything the other side offers and is more willing to give room for criticism.  Sure that goes for both sides.  But in this case, FAIRMormon is much better at this than MS, or Jeremy Runnels (I know next to nothing about Meldrum and Snuffer). 

I see people characterizing this whole affair as, in essence, Scott not knowing Dehlin's true explanation of how he views God is so bad it's really just Scott telling people MS is bad and they shouldn't even look into it, when he says nothing of the sort.  But Dehlin's accusation of "smear, malign, and doing him harm" based on Scott's understanding of Dehlin is okay and perhaps even justified.  I really don't think that's a credible view. 

This get's to the bottom of it, if you ask me. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah well Dehlin set himself up for this stuff when he made his personal life public. It's no big deal to be called an atheist it just represents a set of beliefs. I never had the time to listen to a bazillion podcasts but the way I hear it is John is all over the place with his beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that either, just don't be surprised when someone gets it wrong. I think this whole thread is much ado about nothing. People are so easy to be offended these days.

To an extent I agree.  he needs to expect criticisms will come.  Someone characterizing his belief in God as something he disagrees with is not an attack on him.  he should accept people are going to get it wrong.  he should simply be ready and quick to point out the more accurate way to put his belief in God and move on. 

[Kevin Christensen]

In light of all the hubbub here and elsewhere directed at 40 seconds of Scott Gordon,, Daniel Peterson notes the interesting silence about the June 12th posting of a two hour interview with John Dehlin subtitled, "The Reluctant Atheist".

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/john-dehlin-the-reluctant-atheist.html

The Irony Police made no arrests so far, since once again, they all seem to be napping.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[jkwilliams]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I will say, you've made a good point.  I view this as nothing more than a quick overview of 4 items and sources that he has an issue with--he the leader of FairMormon, a non-profit set up to address these very things.  I don't hear an angry tone at all.  When I ask for support for the angry tone I get nothing.  Considering the tone offered by these four, quite often, when addressing his group, his has an amazingly kind tone.  How someone reads hostility in the tone is odd to me. 

Somehow FAIRMormon summarizing MS as a place that focuses more on social issues and saying the head of MS does not believe in God is seen as telling people not to pay attention to it, but the tone found at MS regarding FAIRMormon is not to be mentioned. 

This suggests to me that you were right when it comes to finding no resolve here.  No matter what people will complain about the other side.  It's tough because I actually find myself agreeing with criticisms and making critical arguments against the Church and FAIRMormon so it'd be easy to just say they're bad and move on.  Somehow one side needs to be mature enough to not read a hostile tone into everything the other side offers and is more willing to give room for criticism.  Sure that goes for both sides.  But in this case, FAIRMormon is much better at this than MS, or Jeremy Runnels (I know next to nothing about Meldrum and Snuffer). 

I see people characterizing this whole affair as, in essence, Scott not knowing Dehlin's true explanation of how he views God is so bad it's really just Scott telling people MS is bad and they shouldn't even look into it, when he says nothing of the sort.  But Dehlin's accusation of "smear, malign, and doing him harm" based on Scott's understanding of Dehlin is okay and perhaps even justified.  I really don't think that's a credible view. 

This get's to the bottom of it, if you ask me. 

Heaven knows I'm no defender of John Dehlin or Jeremy Runnells. As I said, I skipped around a bit yesterday in Scott's presentation, and maybe I stumbled across some unrepresentative parts. I did not like the insinuation he made that people who leave "often" are looking for excuses to leave that apparently mask the "real issue":

Quote

Finding weaknesses in early or current church leaders is often the perfect excuse to leave, even though that might not be the real issue.

But I suppose what struck me the most was his characterization of disaffected members:

Quote

The biggest concern we have comes from disaffected members who no longer believe. These modern-day Laman and Lemuels have left the faith and want to validate their choices by bringing you along, too. They have learned that they don't have to convince you of anything. They only have to insert an element of doubt into your mind, and if that doubt is nurtured, then it will grow and destroy your testimony.

I've certainly had the same accusations leveled at me many times. Rather than engage with what I say, people tell me I'm a deceiver who wants to nurture doubt and destroy testimonies, which is silly. I probably did want validation for a long time, but by showing that my concerns were based on good reasons, not by leading people out of the church. I don't know for sure what motivates the four people singled out in the presentation, but I very much doubt they want to destroy people's faith. That's certainly not been my experience with either John Dehlin or Jeremy Runnells. When you label someone "Laman and Lemuel" and assign motivations they may or may not have, you're making things unnecessarily personal, IMO. But what do I know? I've been told I'm "the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is."

When discussing Jeremy Runnells, I wish Scott had stuck with a criticism of Runnells' methodology and logic, as I agree with Scott that Runnells is working from assumptions that may be questionable. Unfortunately, Scott prefaces his discussion of methodology by going after Runnells' honesty and integrity, saying that Runnells "lies" and twists the facts beyond recognition. I don't necessarily agree with Jeremy's conclusions, but most of what I have seen in the CES letter is more or less a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

I may watch the rest of this later, but I stand by my statement that this would have been much more effective a presentation had he left the personal out of it.

Edited July 14, 2016 by jkwilliams

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

False dilemma much?   

LOL!

No, not really a false dilemma.

I happen to know that a producer of John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast contacted Scott Gordon several times trying to get Scott to appear on the podcast.

Scott was given the opportunity to determine the format of the episode.  He could take questions or not as he saw fit.

Scott was also given the option of reviewing any questions in advance so that he could either reject them or modify them if he wanted.

He would then be given the opportunity to prepare before the podcast his response to any of his chosen questions.

But ultimately, Scott declined to appear.

You gotta love a guy with the strength of his convictions.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In light of all the hubbub here and elsewhere directed at 40 seconds of Scott Gordon,, Daniel Peterson notes the interesting silence about the June 12th posting of a two hour interview with John Dehlin subtitled, "The Reluctance Atheist".

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/john-dehlin-the-reluctant-atheist.html

The Irony Police made no arrests so far, since once again, they all seem to be napping.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Interesting.  At the 51 minute mark, Dehlin was asked, "Do you feel you have put it out there, as to what your beliefs are in relation to God?"

His answer:  "uh.....No...I haven't.  Let me do that.  Shall I do that?"

"I'm interested...sure yeah."

Dehlin: "So I...I...I...um...I'll just give the disclaimer, how I want to identify, in terms of how I describe my identity is separate from how I would describe my religious beliefs.  So, obviously what I'm going to describe is going to sound very agnostic, but that doesn't mean that when I pick 20 words to describe myself I'm going to pick agnostic as one of them.  Because I think religion isn't worthy of the top twenty descriptors for my identity.  That's just how I feel.  And so yes, I dont' think anybody knows if a God exists or not, so I think everybody is agnostic in that sense...I...I..I don't...I don't see any evidence for a personal God and anything more nebulous than that, doesn't feel worthy of our attention because it's just too...too nebulous.  So I just don't think it's relevant or interesting to talk about belief in God because it just seems kinda silly and [unable to make out what he said, missed this word Justificicious(?)].  Now, you know I guess in theory it's possible there's a God, so it's not...I'm not...I'm not going to go...oh...there's no God, 'cause I think that [interrupting from interviewer]...

Intereviewer:  "Blah blah blah..yeah the seventh level on the Dawkins scale...blah blah...not really Dawkins it predates him....no one ever positively knows there's no God, so no one is there..."

Angry Randy intervierwer:  "hobbits and unicorns, but people dont' believe them. so I push back....virtually 100% don't believe in hobbits and unicorns and yet 85% percent....plays significant role in American politics...if I were in 1860 I'd identify as an abolitionist....no one does today..um...religions so privileged.  our voice needs to be heard...secular...against the constitution, can't get elected because it's this....other people get to decide and not fair....even Hilary pretends to believe in God and Obama does...it's not a trivial issue...I push back...

Glenn upset too:  "I'm going to speak for John here, Randy.  John's saying he can do it.  I can advance secular without admitting I'm an atheist or agnostic.

Randy:  "I would question that.  It would work better Hillary and Obama just said they didn't believe and lived a good life like me, and yet didn't believe like me....remove my stigmas"...

Intereviewer lady:  You could also argue the term atheist or agnostic itself would say religion isn't worthy of you.  Religion isn't worth your time."

Randy:  "Neil DeGrasse Tyson...says he doesn't golf so he doesn't say he golfs.  So he's a scientists so he doesn't identify as atheist"

Someone else chiming in "hahahaha...he is atheist"
Glenn:  "this si the problem I have...I I sense this in you John you're saying, you know if you're gonna go by the common definition of the term atheist or agnostic, then yes I'm atheist or agnostic, but I dont' want to claim that because it'll hurt my business or work or whatever.  It'll give me baggage and hurt my chances to be successful because other people are awful mean and stuff.  even though it accurately describes your beliefs, John, your trying to pretend they don't. 

John (finally):  "nod to Randy. I try to make it, it's difficult to identify as atheist or agnostic in this world right now, I think that's reprehensible and terrible...I have sympathy for that...And I think it's a credible argument to say, we need to do all we can to lift that stigma.  So, Randy,  I'm going to totally agree with you on that point. 

Randy chimes in with I'm still upset...the hat-tip I acknowledge...go ahead:

John:  "no that I have to say I agree with you is terrible.  the fact that that should have any bearing on someone's electability is repulsive to me.  so atheists and agnostics get a bad rap.

Randy:  "we're right there with rapists or above rapists and equal with Muslims. "

John;  "right. Randy back to you, as far as the term atheist goes, it's really just um...I think I just have it in my mind just first of all is atheist is that you have to sort of declare there is no God and I don't want to be that guy that has too much certainty on either side of the equation. And I know there's probably a lot of arguments against the position.  But that's probably my primary concern that I don't identify as atheist and probably the secondary is that I want to be effective and this probably sounds like a wussy but I..I'm probably effected by the baggage it carries as how I was raised, in terms of atheists.  So that effects me emotionally subconsciously. So I I want to reach as many people as I can. you know I think it's a stupid question to begin with to ask if there's some imaginary being in the sky looking after us.  I think that's just unrealistic and dumb not worthy of our focus. I think that just adds to me just saying why introduce a label that's going to turn a bunch of people off if I think it's a stupid proposition from the start...soo...

Someone interrupts...but...

And it goes on.

I'm not so sure, there's much for John to complain about, though. 

 

 

[USU78]

33 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I happen to know that a producer of John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast contacted Scott Gordon several times trying to get Scott to appear on the podcast.  Scott was given the opportunity to determine the format of the episode.  He could take questions or not as he saw fit.  Scott was also given the option of reviewing any questions in advance so that he could either reject them or modify them if he wanted.  He would then be given the opportunity to prepare before the podcast his response to any of his chosen questions.  But ultimately, Scott declined to appear.  You gotta love a guy with the strength of his convictions.

I see  ...  somebody with cause to be skeptical of the bonafides of the invitor chooses not to accept an alleged invitation [as reported by of all people a producer (and we all know that one of many producers is always the one in the know)] to what would certainly be a hostile interrogator's grilling  lacks conviction.

How's that go again?

Edited July 14, 2016 by USU78
Repeated myself

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

No, not really a false dilemma.

I happen to know that a producer of John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast contacted Scott Gordon several times trying to get Scott to appear on the podcast.

Scott was given the opportunity to determine the format of the episode.  He could take questions or not as he saw fit.

Scott was also given the option of reviewing any questions in advance so that he could either reject them or modify them if he wanted.

He would then be given the opportunity to prepare before the podcast his response to any of his chosen questions.

But ultimately, Scott declined to appear.

You gotta love a guy with the strength of his convictions.

Oh...like I say..I don't know Scott..but so far..not too impressed simply because it was a chance to make an example of faith..his faith and most of all to have a conversation that could be a bridge to understanding. 

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not so sure, there's much for John to complain about, though. 

Agreed.  And thanks for going to this much trouble to provide clarity.

Sounds like a reasonable person could well conclude from that that Dehlin is atheist but doesn't want to admit it because it would affect negatively his ability to reach the people he wants to reach with the message he wants to impart.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Speaking only for myself, I don't think his tone was character assassination. I didn't like his tone, and I said so. As Calm mentioned, people can do and say and believe things that don't define their character, just as I don't believe a single presentation defines Scott Gordon's. 

I really did have a bit of an epiphany yesterday watching that presentation. I realized that a lot of people engaged in the apologetics-criticism battle consider it a deadly serious business, but I just can't anymore.

I need to get on the boat you sail on.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

No, not really a false dilemma.

I happen to know that a producer of John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast contacted Scott Gordon several times trying to get Scott to appear on the podcast.

Scott was given the opportunity to determine the format of the episode.  He could take questions or not as he saw fit.

Scott was also given the option of reviewing any questions in advance so that he could either reject them or modify them if he wanted.

He would then be given the opportunity to prepare before the podcast his response to any of his chosen questions.

But ultimately, Scott declined to appear.

You gotta love a guy with the strength of his convictions.

That's too bad.  Could have been interesting. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Someone interrupts...but...

And it goes on.

I'm not so sure, there's much for John to complain about, though. 

I listened to that whole podcast a few weeks back.  John sounds to me like he doesn't want to be pigeonholed into any one particular position, for various reasons.  I can't say I blame him.  I big thing for many people experiencing a loss of faith in religion is that they reject the black and white kind of thinking they used to identify with and embrace a gray one.  Personally, I'm very uncomfortable showing 100% certainty in anything that is virtually impossible to prove.  

So what I got out of his interview, is that he can understand the atheist position, but he honestly doesn't have certainty on that.  I also get that he has a hope for a God on some level, but that this hope for a God also raises a lot of really concerning questions about the world and suffering etc.  Its not an easy answer, and I don't think he wants to be labeled as an atheist.  

Edited July 14, 2016 by hope_for_things

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I need to get on the boat you sail on.

I wouldn't recommend it.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Agreed.  And thanks for going to this much trouble to provide clarity.

Sounds like a reasonable person could well conclude from that that Dehlin is atheist but doesn't want to admit it because it would affect negatively his ability to reach the people he wants to reach with the message he wants to impart.

yeah..."Do you believe there's a God?"

"Well I don't use the term agnostic because religion isn't worth my time.  I don't identify as atheist because it hurts my reputation.  So, it's silly to ask if there's a God. So whatever..."

uh...please just take some responsibility for your squirrelliness.  Admit it...you've given some pretty weird, confused, mixed messages as it pertains to your belief or lack thereof in God.  There's absolutely no reason to get offended because someone reads or hears your views and concludes, "he doesn't believe in God".  It sounds like you don't to beleivers, at the very least. 

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I listened to that whole podcast a few weeks back.  John sounds to me like he doesn't want to be pigeonholed into any one particular position, for various reasons.  I can't say I blame him.  I big thing for many people experiencing a loss of faith in religion is that they reject the black and white kind of thinking they used to identify with and embrace a gray one.  Personally, I'm very uncomfortable showing 100% certainty in anything that is virtually impossible to prove.  

So what I got out of his interview, is that he can understand the atheist position, but he honestly doesn't have certainty on that.  I also get that he has a hope for a God on some level, but that this hope for a God also raises a lot of really concerning questions about the world and suffering etc.  Its not an easy answer, and I don't think he wants to be labeled as an atheist.  

That's fine by me.  But saying someone doesn't believe in God and saying someone is an atheist are two different things.  It doesn't seem like he can't just simply say, I believe in God, so to a believer, simply put, that reasonably comes off as he doesn't believe in God.  Explanation can be added, sure.  But that doesn't really matter.  The bigger issue is, if he questions God's existence, what's wrong with believers thinking he doesn't believe in God?  It shouldn't matter how he's categorized. 

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I see  ...  somebody with cause to be skeptical of the bonafides of the invitor chooses not to accept an alleged invitation [as reported by of all people a producer (and we all know that one of many producers is always the one in the know)] to what would certainly be a hostile interrogator's grilling  lacks conviction.

How's that go again?

Maybe you missed the part about Scott Gordon being allowed complete control over the format . . .

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's fine by me.  But saying someone doesn't believe in God and saying someone is an atheist are two different things.  It doesn't seem like he can't just simply say, I believe in God, so to a believer, simply put, that reasonably comes off as he doesn't believe in God.  Explanation can be added, sure.  But that doesn't really matter.  The bigger issue is, if he questions God's existence, what's wrong with believers thinking he doesn't believe in God?  It shouldn't matter how he's categorized. 

The problem I see with this is that having questions, doubt, and uncertainty about the existence of God, aren't the same thing as saying I don't believe in God or I'm an atheist, from the member's perspective.   Many believers can respect someone saying they have doubts and uncertainty, but I think that as soon as someone crosses that line to state with certainty about the non-existence of God, many believers will disrespect and judge that person harshly for holding that position.  

Edited July 14, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Calm]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I see  ...  somebody with cause to be skeptical of the bonafides of the invitor chooses not to accept an alleged invitation [as reported by of all people a producer (and we all know that one of many producers is always the one in the know)] to what would certainly be a hostile interrogator's grilling  lacks conviction.

Why in the world would Scott want to be on a site he believes intentionally contributes to members' loss of faith?  This isn't a competition over who has the best argument just for fun or to prove who is the better scholar, Scott is concerned about people's well-being and happiness and even eternal progress from what I have seem.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 I don't think he wants to be labeled as an atheist.  

Is there any evidence he asked them to change the name of the interview or publicly protested it?

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem I see with this is that having questions, doubt, and uncertainty about the existence of God, aren't the same thing as saying I don't believe in God or I'm an atheist, from the member's perspective.   Many believers can respect someone saying they have doubts and uncertainty, but I think that as soon as someone crosses that line to state with certainty about the non-existence of God, many believers will disrespect and judge that person harshly for holding that position.  

That's fair.  But it goes both ways too.  Some self-proclaimed atheists disrespect and judge some too harshly if they are said to be believers.  An ugly outcome of having varying levels of belief and not belief.  I get the John doesn't want to be simply labeled as one who doesnt' believe in God.  He is certainly within his right to correct anyone who misunderstands his position.  I just think it silly to get upset at someone who misunderstood his position considering his kind of waffling position.  I'm honestly not sure where he stands, but if he wants to say he doesn't not believe in God, I'm fine with that. 

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why in the world would Scott want to be on a site he believes intentionally contributes to members' loss of faith?  This isn't a competition over who has the best argument just for fun or to prove who is the better scholar, Scott is concerned about people's well-being and happiness and even eternal progress from what I have seem.

to be fair, John too would, most certainly suggest he's too is concerned about people's well-being and happiness.  Breaking barriers and labels would be a great thing.  In the end, it could be possible that Scott and John get a better understanding of each other and their audiences all benefit. Scott, in going on a podcast could possibly help smooth hurt, or help explain positions that many in the MS camp don't quite get. 

We need to drop the fear and get to know and appreciate each other, each person's contribution and how best we can help. 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

to be fair, John too would, most certainly suggest he's too is concerned about people's well-being and happiness.  Breaking barriers and labels would be a great thing.  In the end, it could be possible that Scott and John get a better understanding of each other and their audiences all benefit. Scott, in going on a podcast could possibly help smooth hurt, or help explain positions that many in the MS camp don't quite get. 

We need to drop the fear and get to know and appreciate each other, each person's contribution and how best we can help. 

I'd imagine it would be something like this, minus the technicolor and choreography.