Protecting Mormons online

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Interesting.  What confusion was there?

Who he was, why he was doing what he was doing, his beliefs.

One of the useful results of Greg's work is having JD's ongoing comments on record given how fond JD is of deleting them.  Being able to read his own words are the best way imo to understand JD's process.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

Of course... so now you're implying that he is only in it for the money?  Perhaps you could believe him when he says why he is doing it.

He still makes far less than a general authority in the church.  But I guess they don't get your same cynicism. 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Of course... so now you're implying that he is only in it for the money?  Perhaps you could believe him when he says why he is doing it.

He still makes far less than a general authority in the church.  But I guess they don't get your same cynicism. 

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who he was, why he was doing what he was doing, his beliefs.

One of the useful results of Greg's work is having JD's ongoing comments on record given how fond JD is of deleting them.  Being able to read his own words are the best way imo to understand JD's process.

Sounds about right.  Although, I think that listening to him is the best way to understand his process. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

Thanks. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Uhhh let me see. Scott and a number of others here specifically say the Smith Paper was there to warn people.  If you think it was meant to be some scholarly paper that would just be read by other high brow scholars well okie dokie.  What can I say?  Why waste so much time and energy on something that would have such a limited impact.

You correctly note that Gregory Smith's article had a limited impact, but it was not intended to do otherwise -- except in the competitive and angry world you inhabit.  Scholarship just doesn't get that sort of widespread play, and is not intended to.  Scott Smith is a mass market newspaper guy, and thinking along the same lines that you do may come naturally to him.  However, I see no advantage to the "them and us" mentality.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But I think you are smply wrong. The Smith Piece was intended to reach a very large audience and diminish Dehlin's influence. From what I see it simply failed and may have helped propel Dehlin's success.  I think your comments above are well, made to make you feel better about the Smith paper's failure.

But you admit that Gregory Smith's article(s) did not get widespread press, which is what I said anyhow.  In your world, telling the truth is only done so that one can feel better about failure.  In my world, telling the truth is done because it's the right thing to do.  You defend the zero sum game which I decry.  Something is very wrong about your sense of values.  Honesty to you is just a cynical tactic used to get over on someone.  Really?!

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sounds about right.  Although, I think that listening to him is the best way to understand his process. 

Like reading a paper is the best way to understand what is in it? Just wading in the hypocrisy here. And rolling my eyes that somebody could actually think that those who are countering what he is saying don't know what he is saying. 

cue Twilight Zone music......

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Of course... so now you're implying that he is only in it for the money?

You might want to treat others' comments in context rather than rendering them one dimensional as if they never said something else.  That tends to create straw men and a disinclination to continue the conversation.

John Dehlin, iirc, has commented that he could not do what he does on MS unless he is funded because of his family needs.  Outside of that he is self employed and responsible for building his own practice, I believe.  Most new therapists struggle for a number of years to establish a vigorous, sustainable practice.  I know of several who specialize who are highly dependent on referrals and have gone through lean years, especially given how tied to the economy their work is.  Some therapists build up a practice through establishing themselves through a clinic before going fully independent. Since he cannot work through a clinic (if I understand correctly), he is solely dependent on becoming well known in the community in other ways.  It has to be reassuring to have a part time job that gives him what many would say was full time pay as well as exposure to the very market his clients come from.  It doesn't have to be his only motivation for doing it, he likely did not expect this when he started, but as I pointed out above, how much he gets paid influences his decision to keep doing it.

He specializes in transitioning individuals and families.  If he is successful on the one hand of creating the 'welcoming environment' he pictures the Church should be, he will lose a major source of clients.  Interest in his podcasts will likely drop as well.  Funding will dry up once the goal is accomplished.  It is unlikely fondness would keep it going for historical interest.  

He is undoubtedly realistic enough to realize that significant of a change isn't happening in his lifetime (if ever),but like many therapists who are pleased when their clients are healthy enough to no longer need their services, it would surprise me if there was not a twinge of uncertainty about oneself due to the loss of security the loss of a client represents coupled with the satisfaction of helping someone.

"Some cognitive dissonance" hardly implies it is the only thought/motivation he has to deal with.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

.....................................................................

...................................... 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.

Scholarly papers typically require a great deal of time and energy, and generally receive only limited circulation.  You say that "it's too bad," but scholars expect that to be the case.  For them, when popular accounts are finally penned for wider publication (perhaps years later), hundreds of such scholarly articles will be taken into consideration, and that is the real value of careful, plodding research which finally has its payoff in clarity and accuracy for consumption by the general public.  Such considerations apply in history, science, law, and so on.

You are a partisan.  I say, let the chips fall where they may -- regardless of whose side you are on.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Like reading a paper is the best way to understand what is in it? Just wading in the hypocrisy here. And rolling my eyes that somebody could actually think that those who are countering what he is saying don't know what he is saying. 

cue Twilight Zone music......

No hypocrisy.  I have read the paper. 

Based on the paper, it seems that Smith worked hard to read everything Dehlin ever wrote.  But Smith admittedly only listened to a small portion of Dehlin's primary work:  the podcasts. 

Am I wrong?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholarly papers typically require a great deal of time and energy, and generally receive only limited circulation.  You say that "it's too bad," but scholars expect that to be the case.  For them, when popular accounts are finally penned for wider publication (perhaps years later), hundreds of such scholarly articles will be taken into consideration, and that is the real value of careful, plodding research which finally has its payoff in clarity and accuracy for consumption by the general public.  Such considerations apply in history, science, law, and so on.

You are a partisan.  I say, let the chips fall where they may -- regardless of whose side you are on.

That I disagree with you doesn't make me a partisan.  What makes you say im partisan?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

You might want to treat others' comments in context rather than rendering them one dimensional as if they never said something else.  That tends to create straw men and a disinclination to continue the conversation.

John Dehlin, iirc, has commented that he could not do what he does unless he is funded because of his family needs.  

"Some cognitive dissonance" hardly implies it is the only thought/motivation he has to deal with.

Getting paid for what he does and saying that he couldn't do it without getting paid, doesn't mean that money is WHY he does it. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that listening to him is the best way to understand his process. 

In the here and now perhaps.  Observing him from afar for the past decade has led me to conclude he can be rather changeable and listening to him with one audience does not provide a very complete picture, which is not unusual.

Greg's paper allows people to "listen to him" in a variety of contexts over time (up to that point).

Edited April 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Getting paid for what he does and saying that he couldn't do it without getting paid, doesn't mean that money is WHY he does it. 

And since that isn't what Julie said, you are arguing a strawman.

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You correctly note that Gregory Smith's article had a limited impact, but it was not intended to do otherwise -- except in the competitive and angry world you inhabit.  Scholarship just doesn't get that sort of widespread play, and is not intended to.  Scott Smith is a mass market newspaper guy, and thinking along the same lines that you do may come naturally to him.  However, I see no advantage to the "them and us" mentality.

But you admit that Gregory Smith's article(s) did not get widespread press, which is what I said anyhow.  In your world, telling the truth is only done so that one can feel better about failure.  In my world, telling the truth is done because it's the right thing to do.  You defend the zero sum game which I decry.  Something is very wrong about your sense of values.  Honesty to you is just a cynical tactic used to get over on someone.  Really?!

1:  I am glad you admit I am correct.  However you are wrong.  It was intended to have impact far beyond the limited impact world you inhabit. But if it makes you feel good to continue to argue as such have at it. I don't care.  I think your approach will continue to FAIL miserably,  But that is ok with me.

2:  Ahhhhh... the angry world I inhabit  Poor Robert. I used to think you were fairly reasonable. I now think you are not.  I am not angry.  Just because I disagree woth youir dogma does not make me so.. But I understand you need to brand me as such to make yourself safe and secure in out own bias.

3:  This rant...

But you admit that Gregory Smith's article(s) did not get widespread press, which is what I said anyhow.  In your world, telling the truth is only done so that one can feel better about failure.  In my world, telling the truth is done because it's the right thing to do.  You defend the zero sum game which I decry.  Something is very wrong about your sense of values.  Honesty to you is just a cynical tactic used to get over on someone.  Really?!

....is simply that. A rant.  Your truth is truth ultimately because you think God, if there is a God tells you so.  So tell me Robert, what is wrong with my sense of values?  Come on. Tell me. Do you know me? Do you know my values?  I no longer am cynical.  Not al all. I approach the world with a skeptical but open mind understanding there is a lot I may be wrong about.  I do not think there is a religion that has the corner market on truth.  It seems you do. 

How about you work on stopping judging others and labeling them like you do me in order to substantiate your own confirmation bias.  It might help you be a better Mormon, 

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1:  I am glad you admit I am correct.  However you are wrong.  It was intended to have impact far beyond the limited impact world you inhabit. But if it makes you feel good to continue to argue as such have at it. I don't care.  I think your approach will continue to FAIL miserably,  But that is ok with me.

2:  Ahhhhh... the angry world I inhabit  Poor Robert. I used to think you were fairly reasonable. I now think you are not.  I am not angry.  Just because I disagree woth youir dogma does not make me so.. But I understand you need to brand me as such to make yourself safe and secure in out own bias.

3:  This rant...

.................................

....is simply that. A rant.  Your truth is truth ultimately because you think God, if there is a God tells you so.  So tell me Robert, what is wrong with my sense of values?  Come on. Tell me. Do you know me? Do you know my values?  I no longer am cynical.  Not al all. I approach the world with a skeptical but open mind understanding there is a lot I may be wrong about.  I do not think there is a religion that has the corner market on truth.  It seems you do. 

How about you work on stopping judging others and labeling them like you do me in order to substantiate your own confirmation bias.  It might help you be a better Mormon, 

This sadly reminds me of the failed psychohistory of Fawn Brodie.  As you do, she wrote out of bitterness and anger (so said Mike Quinn in my presence), projecting her own cynicism upon others.  Instead of dealing with substance, you attack and thus miss the point of scholarship, which knows no dogmas -- except those of best scholarly practice, which includes sincerity, which you might try to adopt.  Would help you a lot not to so constantly be on the attack.  Your deep-seated partisanship does not become you, Teancum.

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This sadly reminds me of the failed psychohistory of Fawn Brodie.  As you do, she wrote out of bitterness and anger (so said Mike Quinn in my presence), projecting her own cynicism upon others.  Instead of dealing with substance, you attack and thus miss the point of scholarship, which knows no dogmas -- except those of best scholarly practice, which includes sincerity, which you might try to adopt.  Would help you a lot not to so constantly be on the attack.  Your deep-seated partisanship does not become you, Teancum.

Oh Robert,  This is not worth my time. Nor my effort.  Life has so much to offer that is limited by narrow minded dogmatic religion.  I wish you well in your narrow minded little world view. 

Best regards...........

Edited April 15, 2017 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That I disagree with you doesn't make me a partisan.  What makes you say im partisan?

Disagreement has nothing to do with being partisan, but rather with blindly rooting for a team, as though that had any importance at all.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh Robert,  This is not worth my time. Nor may effort.  Life has so much to offer that is limited by narrow minded dogmatic religion.  I wish you well in your narrow minded little world view. 

Best regards...........

Back at you, Teancum.........

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And since that isn't what Julie said, you are arguing a strawman.

I disagree that it wasn't what Julie was saying.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I disagree that it wasn't what Julie was saying.

This is what she said:

"He would be out of a very high paying job if he succeeded. That must cause some cognitive dissonance."

What there demonstrates she is incapable of understanding behaviours have multiple reasons driving them or that she refused to do so in this case?

Edited April 16, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Disagreement has nothing to do with being partisan, but rather with blindly rooting for a team, as though that had any importance at all.

Since I'm not blindly rooting for a team than I don't fit your definition either.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep... I understand the new narrative.

Snarkiness notwithstanding, this is not a new narrative. Even if, like Teancum, you reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the passage from Nephi is at least as old as the book itself.

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is what she said:

"He would be out of a very high paying job if he succeeded. That must cause some cognitive dissonance."

What there demonstrates she is incapable of understanding behaviours have multiple reasons driving them?

I'm sure Juliann is capable of understanding behaviors have multiple reasons driving them.  But in that statement she implies cog dis coming from Dehlin not wanting to lose his "high paying job" by succeeding in getting the church to change.  IOW - he's in it for the money.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Snarkiness notwithstanding, this is not a new narrative. Even if, like Teancum, you reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the passage from Nephi is at least as old as the book itself.

Yep.  But when I was young we didn't teach that the church would diminish, we taught (and looked forward to) its amazing growth.  That's what I was referring to.