Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 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. And I believe that. But I also believe that what he sees as useful in helping others is generally more detrimental than helpful. One thing that has become obvious to me over the years talking with people who have lost faith, experience doubt in negative ways (I believe some forms of doubt can be very beneficial, including doubts about faith), or who have reported the experience of friends and family members experiencing such is that context/environment matters. From what I have seen the environment of MS is very detrimental to faith and one or even a number of podcasts that are neutral or even possibly faith positive embedded in a mass of faith negative does not provide sufficient balance. 1
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Just to clarify, turning down an opportunity to be interviewed by JD on his own show is not the same thing as turning down all opportunities to interact and exchange ideas with JD. For example, though years ago, Scott invited JD to join FM for that very reason (I think it was Scott, he definitely gave his approval if it wasn't his idea). And JD did for a short time but from what I saw JD didn't do much actual interacting, but more pontificating. And as far as I am aware Scott hadn't refused neutral ground interviews or conferences where JD would also present and had equal opportunity to respond because of JD's presence (time conflicts and effort required to make it work might have caused refusal). Edited July 14, 2016 by Calm 1
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 For example, UVU's Mormonism and the Internet conference featured Scott, JD, and Rosemary Avance. They have a YouTube of it, session 5 that I can't link to because of my tech. Here is the info: https://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonismandtheinternet/schedule/ 3
stemelbow Posted July 14, 2016 Author Posted July 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Just to clarify, turning down an opportunity to be interviewed by JD on his own show is not the same thing as turning down all opportunities to interact and exchange ideas with JD. For example, though years ago, Scott invited JD to join FM for that very reason (I think it was Scott, he definitely gave his approval if it wasn't his idea). And JD did for a short time but from what I saw JD didn't do much actual interacting, but more pontificating. And as far as I am aware Scott hadn't refused neutral ground interviews or conferences where JD would also present and had equal opportunity to respond because of JD's presence (time conflicts and effort required to make it work might have caused refusal). Still. I could still see a benefit to Scott going on MS. Dan did it years ago, and his podcast was one of my favorites. 1
consiglieri Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 45 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Still. I could still see a benefit to Scott going on MS. Dan did it years ago, and his podcast was one of my favorites. Whatever you may say about Dan Peterson, at least he has the courage of his convictions.
hope_for_things Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Is there any evidence he asked them to change the name of the interview or publicly protested it? I'm not sure if you've listened to the Infants before, but they are all about satire and biting commentary on issues. If I remember correctly, this whole episode was in response to a facebook post that Dehlin published on June 2nd. In that post (anyone can google its on his public profile) on June 2, John says this "I don't think that I will ever identify as atheist or agnostic. While I have tons of respect for those who do ('tis not an easy lot)... here is my reasoning: If religion is made up/man-made...then it doesn't deserve a portion of my identity. After all...I don't self-identify in reference to hobbits, or elves, or trolls. So why self-identify in terms of religious non-belief? How about truth-seeker as an identity? Your favorite ways to self-identify?" So that led to the Infants inviting him on for an interview. He's seems to be on friendly terms with many of them, so I'm guessing he didn't mind them using that title. I think he likely views what happened with the Infants as friendly chiding about his not wanting to be pinned down and labeled. Much different than the way he viewed Scott's critique, which I still think was an overreaction on Dehlin's part. 1
juliann Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm not sure if you've listened to the Infants before, but they are all about satire and biting commentary on issues. If I remember correctly, this whole episode was in response to a facebook post that Dehlin published on June 2nd. In that post (anyone can google its on his public profile) on June 2, John says this "I don't think that I will ever identify as atheist or agnostic. While I have tons of respect for those who do ('tis not an easy lot)... here is my reasoning: If religion is made up/man-made...then it doesn't deserve a portion of my identity. After all...I don't self-identify in reference to hobbits, or elves, or trolls. So why self-identify in terms of religious non-belief? How about truth-seeker as an identity? Your favorite ways to self-identify?" So that led to the Infants inviting him on for an interview. He's seems to be on friendly terms with many of them, so I'm guessing he didn't mind them using that title. I think he likely views what happened with the Infants as friendly chiding about his not wanting to be pinned down and labeled. Much different than the way he viewed Scott's critique, which I still think was an overreaction on Dehlin's part. Um. No. If you can get past the giggling over repeating naughty words and JD describing his bowel movements, they make it very clear that the reason he won't use the atheist term is because it would limit his audience. Lady host makes an analogy to women who won't call themselves feminists but they are obviously feminists. Can it be made any clearer what He is doing after that? Or after one of his advocate hosts describes his word switching as a shell game? It's in the 50-65 minute range. And mind you this was said before Scott. 3
hope_for_things Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: 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. I agree that it goes both ways. I think he overreacted, and I can understand the confusion about his stance on God, because honestly it has been confusing. I'm guessing the setting bothered John, and the way Scott positioned it as if he knows John's position and can accurately represent John's position. Unfair choice by Mr. Gordon.
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I agree that it goes both ways. I think he overreacted, and I can understand the confusion about his stance on God, because honestly it has been confusing. I'm guessing the setting bothered John, and the way Scott positioned it as if he knows John's position and can accurately represent John's position. Unfair choice by Mr. Gordon. I agree that Dehlin way overreacted, but at least he didn't call a press conference this time. 4
hope_for_things Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, juliann said: Um. No. If you can get past the giggling over repeating naughty words and JD describing his bowel movements, they make it very clear that the reason he won't use the atheist term is because it would limit his audience. Lady host makes an analogy to women who won't call themselves feminists but they are obviously feminists. Can it be made any clearer what He is doing after that? Or after one of his advocate hosts describes his word switching as a shell game? It's in the 50-65 minute range. And mind you this was said before Scott. I don't think John would deny that one of the reasons he doesn't identify this way is because of social stigma. He insinuates that as well in his facebook post when he says "tis not an easy lot". He knows what the social stigma is, and they talk about that on the Infants episode as well. That doesn't mean this is his one and only reason for not wanting to be labeled an atheist. You can't boil it down to that simplistic of an argument. I've heard him state on multiple occasions over the years that he hopes that there is a God, but with some reservations because of ethical/moral concerns.
juliann Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 23 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Whatever you may say about Dan Peterson, at least he has the courage of his convictions. And John promptly used him and others as proof of his fairness. Meanwhile there were at least two others who asked and were promised a response and were never contacted again. That did not stop JD from claiming that he couldn't get anyone to come on his podcast while he ignored them But mostly, your false dilemma is question begging and silly. You seem to think it is an obligation to do a podcast. You have no idea what Scott has done. He is regularly asked to do things. There is no reason or advantage to meet JD's demands. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Still. I could still see a benefit to Scott going on MS. Dan did it years ago, and his podcast was one of my favorites. Reminds me of the time I suggested that it might be nice to have an ex-Mormon on the FAIR conference panel discussing how to deal with a loved one who has left the church. Let's just say it didn't go over well. 4
Jeanne Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I agree that Dehlin way overreacted, but at least he didn't call a press conference this time. Yeah! I like John as a person...but playing victim and being a star was getting old. I believe he has garnered enough "work" respect in his field to be comfortable just being his own person. He has nothing else to prove. That being said, both parties should remember in the future to allow some respect. Always..both ways. I do hope that someday Scott might say yes to an interview..with his own conditions if he wants and go ahead and call John out on some things..it would be beneficial to both of them and all of us as well. John, I think, is getting is own recognition in the things that he is involved in. Jeremy is also a lot quieter lately. Maybe the "tone" of things is what it is really all about..not the actual communication but the way it is put across. I could use a class on this.
stemelbow Posted July 14, 2016 Author Posted July 14, 2016 22 minutes ago, juliann said: Um. No. If you can get past the giggling over repeating naughty words and JD describing his bowel movements, they make it very clear that the reason he won't use the atheist term is because it would limit his audience. Lady host makes an analogy to women who won't call themselves feminists but they are obviously feminists. Can it be made any clearer what He is doing after that? Or after one of his advocate hosts describes his word switching as a shell game? It's in the 50-65 minute range. And mind you this was said before Scott. I transcribed the portion you mention, above, in this thread. 1
Jeanne Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Reminds me of the time I suggested that it might be nice to have an ex-Mormon on the FAIR conference panel discussing how to deal with a loved one who has left the church. Let's just say it didn't go over well. Why??
stemelbow Posted July 14, 2016 Author Posted July 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Why?? Yeah, it's a shame. Could have been well worth everyone's time. 2
Jeanne Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yeah, it's a shame. Could have been well worth everyone's time. I agree. This would be a wonderful door to open and help each other out. I know people who have had experiences that could help family members deal with this heartbreak and as for me, I still deal with it. I and many others would love for family members to better understand us..and for all of us ex mormons to learn patience. It would be a win..win! 1
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Stem, The quote was a real quote? Here I thought it was you synthesizing the implication of his remarks with humor and not something he actually said.
consiglieri Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, juliann said: You have no idea what Scott has done. He is regularly asked to do things. There is no reason or advantage to meet JD's demands. Other than ad hominem attacks, you are right that I have no idea what Scott has done. But it is incorrect to characterize JD's invitation to Scott to come on the show as a "demand." Quite the opposite. Actually, JD was willing to format the show around any demands that Scott made. If Scott wanted to get the FAIR message out to thousands and thousands of listeners who wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to it, that was a golden opportunity.
USU78 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Maybe you missed the part about Scott Gordon being allowed complete control over the format . . . Maybe you missed the part about Scott Gordon having no reason to trust the bonafides of those allegedly issuing an invitation. 1
USU78 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Whatever you may say about Dan Peterson, at least he has the courage of his convictions. There you go again ... accusing Scott of cowardice and wholly without supporting evidence. 2
USU78 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Actually, JD was willing to format the show around any demands that Scott made How do you know Scott made any demand, let alone demands? How do you know Dehlin and/or his producer(s), including the producer you claim claimed an invitation issued, could be trusted to keep their/his/her word? 1
cinepro Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 7 hours ago, USU78 said: How do you know Scott made any demand, let alone demands? How do you know Dehlin and/or his producer(s), including the producer you claim claimed an invitation issued, could be trusted to keep their/his/her word? Scott should have agreed to a dual-release podcast. Both Mormon Stories and FAIR get a copy of the unedited podcast and get to host it.
consiglieri Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 7 hours ago, cinepro said: Scott should have agreed to a dual-release podcast. Both Mormon Stories and FAIR get a copy of the unedited podcast and get to host it. How long did it take you to think of that? Maybe you should do contract work for FAIR?
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, cinepro said: Scott should have agreed to a dual-release podcast. Both Mormon Stories and FAIR get a copy of the unedited podcast and get to host it. Calm's point remains : Why imply by your participation that the venue and its denizens are anything other than virulent bigots? Edited July 15, 2016 by USU78
Recommended Posts