Protecting Mormons online

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really who cares?  The real question is where is the greatest influence. You tell me who you think has the greatest reach?  For me at this point I don't care. I have no skin in the game.  I am who I am and am where I am and am quite comfortable with that.  But those vested in defending the Church really ought to look at this and wonder and seek answers.  Again I have done nothing to study this or seek evidence. But were I a betting man I would put my money on MS. the OSF etc having far greater reach and impact than Interpreter, anything they or Smith write and I would guess I would lump FAIR into that as well.

I could be wrong. But if I am I don't care. Those vested in this ought to.

I'll tell you who had the greatest influence, the people who exed him and the church that stood behind them.  

Again, I have no ill will towards Dehlin. Live and let live. People will have to figure it out themselves. But comparing apples to oranges and claiming victory is bonkers. He gets more traffic than one academic paper. What an achievement.  Unfortunately,  Dehlin has to deal with much more than one paper. And that includes a wave of disparate LDS intellectuals who are getting along, talking about the same stuff, but who reject the nastiness and don't want to blow up the good the church does. In the end, it is all about the community. That is what the exmos want and for good reason.  But the community belongs to and is glued together by the church. 

Read the the thread about the church's humanitarian efforts and then come back to this nitpicky nonsense. I know where I would rather be. 

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 0:59 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Mormons think you are nuts? I'm a Mormon, and I've never thought that.

Afterthought: Maybe I'm nuts too!

 

We all are a bit nuts and crazy.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nephi beheld in vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the influence of Satan. To wit:

 

Just pointing out here that "influence" and "reach" do not necessarily make a thing right. Nor do the say who or what will triumph in the end.

 

I understand this. I don't think Nephi was ever a real person and the passages on this are put in as a safety clause to give an out for a church that would never likely ever be that significant on a world scale.

 

I know we disagree on that. I want you to know though that I respect that you believe Nephi was a real person and the passage you reference a real revelation. 

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really who cares?  The real question is where is the greatest influence. You tell me who you think has the greatest reach?  For me at this point I don't care. I have no skin in the game.  I am who I am and am where I am and am quite comfortable with that.  But those vested in defending the Church really ought to look at this and wonder and seek answers.  Again I have done nothing to study this or seek evidence. But were I a betting man I would put my money on MS. the OSF etc having far greater reach and impact than Interpreter, anything they or Smith write and I would guess I would lump FAIR into that as well.

I could be wrong. But if I am I don't care. Those vested in this ought to.

I'll say it again. Influence isn't only in a site's traffic and  it is also about who is being influenced. I don't know much about Interpreter but Church News covers FM conferences every year and has posted or linked talks on LDS.org or uses its content in other ways, such as printing a talk in the Ensign. That means it is international. 

That is why this is the dumbest hijack of a thread ever. 

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'll tell you who had the greatest influence, the people who exed him and the church that stood behind them.  

Again, I have no ill will towards Dehlin. Live and let live. People will have to figure it out themselves. But comparing apples to oranges and claiming victory is bonkers. He gets more traffic than one academic paper. What an achievement.  Unfortunately,  Dehlin has to deal with much more than one paper. And that includes a wave of disparate LDS intellectuals who are getting along, talking about the same stuff, but who reject the nastiness and don't want to blow up the good the church does. In the end, it is all about the community. That is what the exmos want and for good reason.  But the community belongs to and is glued together by the church. 

Read the the thread about the church's humanitarian efforts and then come back to this nitpicky nonsense. I know where I would rather be. 

One of the reasons as what I would term myself as a skeptic seeker of truth that now leans agnostic that I stay in the LDS Church and attend as well as participate to the extent I am willing is for the community and support. As well as for my wife.

 

But like I said. I don't care.  I reject the idea of one true church with one true priesthood that one must have administer some esoteric ordinances to reach some arbitrary God's highest heaven.  It has become nonsensical and almost ludicrous to me that I used to embrace something so fully.  I am happy where I am above. I have no agenda to drive or attract people to the LDS Church or any other religion. I still give to the LDS Church both in tithes and other offerings because I do think it does do much good as well as much bad but the good out weighs the bad.  I also give to other religious groups that do good as well as secular groups. 

My personal goals are to love one another, do no harm, treat others as I want to be treated, share of my means to relieve human suffering where I can.   I can still do that through the LDS Church. But I think it as well as no religion has any idea who and what God is if there is even a God.

But I just share with those of you more vested in things LDS than I am , don't underestimate the John Dehlins of the world.  You do so at the peril of losing which IMO you and the LDS church are losing.

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, not at all.  Not the point I was making...

First, I didn't claim that "almost nobody" saw the paper.  Second, having footnotes doesn't make something scholarly.

But, to the main point:  I wasn't comparing the two.  It's been suggested that Smith wrote the paper as a caveat emptor for anyone who might choose to listen to Dehlin.  So, I was pointing out that Smith's paper likely isn't getting significant reach to serve well in that function.  It's too bad - Smith clearly devoted a lot of time and energy to it.

Again, let me point out that Smith is an intelligent man, brilliant actually.  He is also a member of FairMormon.  In part, FairMormon exists to  function as a clearinghouse of information between academic work and all levels of readers (begin with us and end there with our short answers, our longer explanations accompanying them, or pursue more detailed knowledge by checking out the references).  Iow, Smith has been directly involved in creating a variety of resources based on awareness of what type of resource gets accessed and read by individuals.

If you think that Smith was confused about who would be reading his paper, what type of immediate reach it would have, you underestimate the man and pretty much every member of FM who thinks he did a great job and what was needed.

Smith wrote a foundation, others built on it. 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

Nicely put, T.  I very much understand where you are coming from and I think Church leaders have created much of the skepticism. Not intentionally, of course, but nevertheless it will be some time before it is rectified. Meanwhile, I think the message is that everyone needs to start relying on themselves a little more and taking charge of their own beliefs rather than making it the leaders' responsibility. And I think it means we all need to go in search of God in a much more personal way. 

On the other hand, it is the community that provides a foundation and support to be a good person. I have the same issues with Sundays as many others, but it starts my week, it centers me, it resets me. I need that. 

Have you listened to Dan Wotherspoon on Mormon Matters (part of Dehlin's empire?) He is much like you, I think. He does not countenance the rabid anger and is at a place where he has found peace with the church and truly desires to help others do the same. He talks about the same stuff but in a positive manner that builds and gives hope. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure Dehlin's narrative is that much less persuasive.  Obviously he is no longer the questioning Mormon he was when he began -- back when I first learned of Mormon Stories.  But, now he is somewhat of a martyr for the cause.  I don't imagine that those who he aims to help are bothered by the church having deemed him an apostate (and Smith's 100 page caveat emptor from 2013 seems unlikely to have an impact either). 

As for Dehlin's attempts to change the church, while it hasn't gotten to where he'd like it to be, I'm confident that he has had a positive impact on the church.  And a positive impact in the lives of those who had to leave the church.

Since the FM Question service is completely confidential, I can only give you my impressions without documentation, but my experience of reading every question sent confirms to me confusion over what Dehlin is doing has dropped to pretty much nil in the past two years.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nephi beheld in vision that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the face of the earth but that its numbers would be few by reason of the influence of Satan. To wit:

 

Just pointing out here that "influence" and "reach" do not necessarily make a thing right. Nor do the say who or what will triumph in the end.

 

Yep... I understand the new narrative.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I'll tell you who had the greatest influence, the people who exed him and the church that stood behind them.  

Again, I have no ill will towards Dehlin. Live and let live. People will have to figure it out themselves. But comparing apples to oranges and claiming victory is bonkers. He gets more traffic than one academic paper. What an achievement.  Unfortunately,  Dehlin has to deal with much more than one paper. And that includes a wave of disparate LDS intellectuals who are getting along, talking about the same stuff, but who reject the nastiness and don't want to blow up the good the church does. In the end, it is all about the community. That is what the exmos want and for good reason.  But the community belongs to and is glued together by the church. 

Read the the thread about the church's humanitarian efforts and then come back to this nitpicky nonsense. I know where I would rather be. 

You claim no ill will and then grossly misrepresent people.

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'll say it again. Influence isn't only in a site's traffic and  it is also about who is being influenced. I don't know much about Interpreter but Church News covers FM conferences every year and has posted or linked talks on LDS.org or uses its content in other ways, such as printing a talk in the Ensign. That means it is international. 

That is why this is the dumbest hijack of a thread ever. 

The OP referenced Dehlin's efforts to "protect Mormons"... doesn't seem like the thread has been hijacked.

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again, let me point out that Smith is an intelligent man, brilliant actually.  He is also a member of FairMormon.  In part, FairMormon exists to  function as a clearinghouse of information between academic work and all levels of readers (begin with us and end there with our short answers, our longer explanations accompanying them, or pursue more detailed knowledge by checking out the references).  Iow, Smith has been directly involved in creating a variety of resources based on awareness of what type of resource gets accessed and read by individuals.

If you think that Smith was confused about who would be reading his paper, what type of immediate reach it would have, you underestimate the man and pretty much every member of FM who thinks he did a great job and what was needed.

Smith wrote a foundation, others built on it. 

I don't think that I underestimate Smith and I don't think he wrote the paper as a caveat emptor to would be MS listeners.  I agree with you and think he wrote it for those intellectuals within the FM circle who were likely to read it and possibly reference it in future works.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

Nicely put, T.  I very much understand where you are coming from and I think Church leaders have created much of the skepticism. Not intentionally, of course, but nevertheless it will be some time before it is rectified. Meanwhile, I think the message is that everyone needs to start relying on themselves a little more and taking charge of their own beliefs rather than making it the leaders' responsibility. And I think it means we all need to go in search of God in a much more personal way. 

On the other hand, it is the community that provides a foundation and support to be a good person. I have the same issues with Sundays as many others, but it starts my week, it centers me, it resets me. I need that. 

Have you listened to Dan Wotherspoon on Mormon Matters (part of Dehlin's empire?) He is much like you, I think. He does not countenance the rabid anger and is at a place where he has found peace with the church and truly desires to help others do the same. He talks about the same stuff but in a positive manner that builds and gives hope. 

Totally agree with this, Juliann (except I'm not sure who you are referencing with "rabid anger" because I don't see that in Dehlin).

[juliann]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

But I just share with those of you more vested in things LDS than I am , don't underestimate the John Dehlins of the world.  You do so at the peril of losing which IMO you and the LDS church are losing.

 

 

Oh, I don't think they are being underestimated at all. But I do think that using one academic paper to giggle over his influence might say something about underestimating the church, too. 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'll say it again. Influence isn't only in a site's traffic and  it is also about who is being influenced. I don't know much about Interpreter but Church News covers FM conferences every year and has posted or linked talks on LDS.org or uses its content in other ways, such as printing a talk in the Ensign. That means it is international. 

That is why this is the dumbest hijack of a thread ever. 

There are also the European FM conferences and various websites.

But church critics have always been able to reach masses more than defenders, it has been that way since the beginning.  The Church is doing what it can by establishing a huge presence on the internet and now growing its available academic and apologetic resources (Gospel Topic, JS Papers, the church history section of the website, etc).  FM has limited resources and unpaid volunteers so our growth is slow and  Dehlin is an able marketer, even so all that is no reason to give up or pout that our likely impact is currently smaller than his or the influence of Ed Decker or James White or any other popular church critic.  We are quite realistic in our expectations.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You claim no ill will and then grossly misrepresent people.

CFR the gross misrepresentation

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since the FM Question service is completely confidential, I can only give you my impressions without documentation, but my experience of reading every question sent confirms to me confusion over what Dehlin is doing has dropped to pretty much nil in the past two years.

Interesting.  What confusion was there?

As a regular listener, I do think that since about a year or two prior to his excommunication he started to become very clear that his purpose was to help those who struggled with faith (primarily with respect to truth claims of the church), rejection, and marital issues that arise out of faith crises.  I want to respect the confidentiality you work under but am curious if you can elaborate on what kind of confusion there was?

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that I underestimate Smith and I don't think he wrote the paper as a caveat emptor to would be MS listeners.  I agree with you and think he wrote it for those intellectuals within the FM circle who were likely to read it and possibly reference it in future works.

OMGosh. Has it ever occurred to you that you are speaking to people who know exactly what it was for? Who interact regularly with the author?

Look up hubris. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

CFR the gross misrepresentation

Your implication that Dehlin wants to "blow up the good the church does".  It just isn't true.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that I underestimate Smith and I don't think he wrote the paper as a caveat emptor to would be MS listeners.  I agree with you and think he wrote it for those intellectuals within the FM circle who were likely to read it and possibly reference it in future works.

You are not agreeing with me if you think it was meant to be limited to the FM circle intellectuals or the FM circle itself.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

OMGosh. Has it ever occurred to you that you are speaking to people who know exactly what it was for? Who interact regularly with the author?

Look up hubris. 

Yes - it's quite clear.  I was responding to and agreeing with one of them!

ETA:  Okay... I thought I was agreeing.  

Edited April 15, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

You are not agreeing with me if you think it was meant to be limited to the FM circle intellectuals or the FM circle itself.

 

My apologies.  I thought that's what you were saying.  I don't think it was intended to be LIMITED to the FM circle (that's rather small) but that it was intended for that audience and others who have similar interests.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes - it's quite clear.  I was responding to and agreeing with one of them!

Who just said you weren't. 

How long do you want to keep this up?

[rockpond]

Just now, juliann said:

Who just said you weren't. 

How long do you want to keep this up?

I just edited my reply to you.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your implication that Dehlin wants to "blow up the good the church does".  It just isn't true.

He would be out of a very high paying job if he succeeded. That must cause some cognitive dissonance. Don't get me wrong about not having ill will against him personally, that doesn't mean I like or respect what he has done and how he has done it. But there is no point in going after him as a person, just like any position in the church, there will always be someone else to do the job.