Apologetic attacks

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I am a pretty frequent listener, and yes, I think I can frankly say that John did do better.

In fact, he did much better in that very next show.

Good for him.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I am a pretty frequent listener, and yes, I think I can frankly say that John did do better.

In fact, he did much better in that very next show.

And who did he interview in the very next show.  In fact, what FM member did he interview after that at all?

First, no one who hasn't listened to the Infants podcast has any standing in criticizing the other guy. And no excuses like those used to avoid the much shorter presentation by Scott, because hey, this one is wonderful and easy to listen to, right? What do you think the average Mormon in the pew would think of JD after hearing him mock them? It is too bad it is so long but I would advise this podcast in his own words be used to explain what he does.

After you list every negative statement made about Mormons, Jesus, God, his own sister, get back to me on why an organization dedicated to defend everything he maligns would benefit from associating with that behavior. Here is your problem and why you have to find random instances to jump on, JD has not said one nice thing about FM for years. Please produce one before remounting your moral high horse. 

I had a very telling experience with this inexplicable one sided thinking. It was in a professional setting where FM was being assisted with necessary updates/reorganization. An employee blurted out that he had asked JD what FM could do to improve .He  thought that would be really helpful to us. Let's overlook the professional ethical/confidentiality problems here (and he did keep his job.) This guy was just sure his advice would be a real gift and more valuable than what FM could provide about itself.  So I asked him if JD could equally benefit from our advice and would he ask for it in return. The guy was literally speechless.....but he was sharp enough to quickly discern the import of the double standard...and hubris. 

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by juliann

[cinepro]

So, this is a little weird...

It's a podcast from last month, produced by some people who are critical of the Church in which they interview Dehlin and felt that the content of the interview was such that it could properly be titled "John Dehlin: The Reluctant Atheist."

I guess Gordon's sin was underestimating just how reluctant.

 

(The relevant part is at 51:00.)

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

So, this is a little weird...

It's a podcast from last month, produced by some people who are critical of the Church in which they interview Dehlin and felt that the content of the interview was such that it could properly be titled "John Dehlin: The Reluctant Atheist."

I guess Gordon's sin was underestimating just how reluctant.

 

(The relevant part is at 51:00.)

 

 

 

I do believe that that Shakespeare really summed this who;e thing succinctly in the title of one of his plays, i.e. much "ado about nothing."

[salgare]

On 7/13/2016 at 10:31 AM, stemelbow said:

What did he say about them? 

It seems he highlighted all of them as their enemies, same old us against them mentality.  I'm not sure what matters beyond that point right?  All is fair in love and war.

Each are simply firing there own shots in this war.  Nothing quite like religion to stir up the best in mankind.

 

Edited July 17, 2016 by salgare

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:02 PM, Calm said:

You need to understand that there has been a lot of interaction prior to and behind the scenes (as mentioned before John Dehlin being invited to join FM, for example).  The decision has been based on history, what has resulted from such inteactions as well as what we have seen resulting from others going on podcasts with MS as well as what generally happens when people get into the site.

That sounds oddly cryptic.  I'm curious what kinds of things you have in mind when you talk about the history.  What has resulted from interactions and others going on podcasts?  This sound like far more than Scott not going on MS because he doesn't want to draw people to antagonistic places.  Wilki Wonka seemed to misrepresent the issue. 

[rongo]

Just now, stemelbow said:

That sounds oddly cryptic.  I'm curious what kinds of things you have in mind when you talk about the history.  What has resulted from interactions and others going on podcasts?  This sound like far more than Scott not going on MS because he doesn't want to draw people to antagonistic places.  Wilki Wonka seemed to misrepresent the issue. 

He wasn't misrepresenting. I was a FAIR list member for eight years, including when John Dehlin applied to join (ca. 2004-2005, to the best of my recollection). I strongly advised against it, based on his FAIR message board posts, and there was some discussion. His tenure on the FAIR list was extremely short-lived, as he immediately tried to rock the boat and use FAIR for his agenda. His good faith was completely feigned. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

He wasn't misrepresenting. I was a FAIR list member for eight years, including when John Dehlin applied to join (ca. 2004-2005, to the best of my recollection). I strongly advised against it, based on his FAIR message board posts, and there was some discussion. His tenure on the FAIR list was extremely short-lived, as he immediately tried to rock the boat and use FAIR for his agenda. His good faith was completely feigned. 

Then this snub, if there were really a snub, seems to have been a result of past history in dealing with Dehlin and personal dislikes and not, at least not exclusively, about not wanting to draw more people and a larger audience to MS. 

[rongo]

I don't think so. I mean, it's probably a factor, but I definitely believe that the primary consideration is not providing oxygen for Dehlin's publicity fires. He is 100% dependent on shamelessly trying to be in the public eye in the media (conventional and social), and when attention for him lags, he can be counted on to try to stir something up and be front and center again. I wouldn't go on his podcast, either, regardless of the terms and format concessions. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think so. I mean, it's probably a factor, but I definitely believe that the primary consideration is not providing oxygen for Dehlin's publicity fires. He is 100% dependent on shamelessly trying to be in the public eye in the media (conventional and social), and when attention for him lags, he can be counted on to try to stir something up and be front and center again. I wouldn't go on his podcast, either, regardless of the terms and format concessions. 

I wouldn't either...but that's mostly because I dont' have anything interesting to say.  If it were ever to the point of him asking, I'd probably be a bit flattered and might, on such grounds, consider it.  There have been some interesting perspectives shared on those podcasts. 

[rongo]

Don't be flattered by John Dehlin.  He is good at pushing that button for people that is effective on. 

Besides, his podcasts consist of a lot of him pontificating. He loves to hear himself talk, even though he is admittedly not well-versed on the issues.

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

Don't be flattered by John Dehlin.  He is good at pushing that button for people that is effective on. 

Besides, his podcasts consist of a lot of him pontificating. He loves to hear himself talk, even though he is admittedly not well-versed on the issues.

Pretty much this. 

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

Don't be flattered by John Dehlin.  He is good at pushing that button for people that is effective on. 

Besides, his podcasts consist of a lot of him pontificating. He loves to hear himself talk, even though he is admittedly not well-versed on the issues.

I dont' disagree with you.  But that doesn't take away from the very good podcasts and very thoughtful perspectives shared there.  My wife heard me listening to him years ago and was very annoyed.  Thought him way too full of himself.  I didn't disagree with that either.  But we're all a little in love with ourselves.  I cant' hold it against him. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I dont' disagree with you.  But that doesn't take away from the very good podcasts and very thoughtful perspectives shared there.  My wife heard me listening to him years ago and was very annoyed.  Thought him way too full of himself.  I didn't disagree with that either.  But we're all a little in love with ourselves.  I cant' hold it against him. 

He's put out some good stuff, I agree, but he's a terrible interviewer. The best interviewers ask questions and let the guest do most of the talking. Dehlin would be much better if he cut his participation in the conversation by about 75% and let his guest actually talk once in a while.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

He's put out some good stuff, I agree, but he's a terrible interviewer. The best interviewers ask questions and let the guest do most of the talking. Dehlin would be much better if he cut his participation in the conversation by about 75% and let his guest actually talk once in a while.

I honestly haven't seen a podcast that isn't similar...ok I mean heard.  I think that's why over the past year I've felt myself turned off of podcasts altogether.  Most seem to be full of people talking too much about themselves.  And if interviews, the interviewers are always chiming in too much. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I honestly haven't seen a podcast that isn't similar...ok I mean heard.  I think that's why over the past year I've felt myself turned off of podcasts altogether.  Most seem to be full of people talking too much about themselves.  And if interviews, the interviewers are always chiming in too much. 

True, but I think he's worse than most. I don't think he's a bad guy, as some seem to around here, but I don't enjoy his podcast style. Sue me.

Edited July 18, 2016 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

True, but I think he's worse than most. I don't think he's a bad guy, as some seem to around here, but I don't enjoy his podcast style. Sue me.

Well considering the clerk from a past ward considered your rich, I might try and figure out a way to sue you. 

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well considering the clerk from a past ward considered your rich, I might try and figure out a way to sue you. 

As someone said recently, I remember the days of living paycheck to paycheck. Now I'm living direct deposit to direct deposit. I have 3 kids in college and another who will be there in a year. I'm just grateful we have enough that we don't have to worry about paying the bills.

Edited July 18, 2016 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As someone said recently, I remember the days of living paycheck to paycheck. Now I'm living direct deposit to direct deposit. I have 3 kids in college and another who will be there in a year. I'm just grateful we have enough that we don't have to worry about paying the bills.

No need to explain your situation.  I was just teasing. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No need to explain your situation.  I was just teasing. 

I should have added a smile.

As my wife says, no one goes into a career as a technical writer expecting to become wealthy.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That sounds oddly cryptic.  I'm curious what kinds of things you have in mind when you talk about the history.  What has resulted from interactions and others going on podcasts?  This sound like far more than Scott not going on MS because he doesn't want to draw people to antagonistic places.  Wilki Wonka seemed to misrepresent the issue. 

Just talking about how the judgment that it was antagonistic was made.  

[Calm]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Then this snub, if there were really a snub, seems to have been a result of past history in dealing with Dehlin and personal dislikes and not, at least not exclusively, about not wanting to draw more people and a larger audience to MS. 

you asked why not take a chance on going on a podcast in hopes of changing things.  Knowing how making positive overtures have not in the past resulted in positive outcomes gives me insight to make a judgment on whether or not we should consider going on IF we had any inclination to go on to the site in the first place.

[Calm]

I have lost track of what has and hasn't been said in this thread, soapologies if repeat.

Here is a blog that reads 'typical Scott' to me.  He is a good man:

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2016/07/18/charity-never-faileth/

"

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity[1]

Last month, I had the pleasure of meeting with members in Norway, Sweden, and Scotland. I met with members who had strong testimonies, members who were struggling, and members who no longer believe. It was a wonderful experience, and I enjoyed every minute of it. Ok, almost every minute. There were some moments of being a bit uncomfortable in a discussion or two. But, by and large, I really enjoyed it.

With that in mind, I would like to tell you about my interaction with some of the Saints in Scotland. I loved my time in the Nordic countries as well, but I can only talk about one thing at a time. In Scotland, I met with three different stakes. I was really impressed that all of the stake presidents were kind and really cared about all of their people. They loved them. That came across strongly in their words and actions.

In two of the stakes, the Stake presidents had me meet with members who had concerns about the Church. [2]

Now, first of all, it is difficult to put a label on these members. We love to put labels on people. We routinely talk about active and less-active members in our wards. We sometimes even talk about faithful, or less faithful. I have heard labels such as disaffected, discouraged, or in extreme cases disloyal. I don’t think any of those labels apply perfectly to the individuals that I met with, and certainly the word disloyal would not apply at all. The best label I could have would be brothers and sisters in the Gospel who have concerns. Yes, some of them no longer attend church, but all of them wanted things to be better....."

[hope_for_things]

John Dehlin posted a new podcast that I started listening to this morning where he addresses the belief in God question again, and the Scott Gordon controversy.  I think he does a nice job of summarizing where his belief is at today, and expressing his concerns about this topic.  In case you're interested, the portion where he addresses this topic at the 10 min and 35 seconds mark.  

http://www.mormonstories.org/john-dehlin-ask-me-almost-anything-on-facebook-live/

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

John Dehlin posted a new podcast that I started listening to this morning where he addresses the belief in God question again, and the Scott Gordon controversy.  I think he does a nice job of summarizing where his belief is at today, and expressing his concerns about this topic.  In case you're interested, the portion where he addresses this topic at the 10 min and 35 seconds mark.  

http://www.mormonstories.org/john-dehlin-ask-me-almost-anything-on-facebook-live/

I'm fine with how he characterizes his beliefs.  I still don't see why he continues to say Scott smeared him when he said John doesn't believe in God, even after this explanation.  Just because John sees room possibly for some kind of God, it's hard to characterize his beliefs as something other than he doesn't believe in God, at least from a believers perspective.  He complains in the video you linked that Scott said he's an atheist, which is not technically correct.  He said he doesn't believe in God.  There's a difference, that I think John is aware of. 

The real problem here is John's desire to paint Scott as so characterizing John because he's in an underhanded way, trying to destroy MS, or whatever.