Protecting Mormons online

[hope_for_things]

On 4/7/2017 at 9:24 PM, clarkgoble said:

My complaint is the huge difference in how he treats believers and non-believers. Whether you call it a safe space or not depends upon what you think is necessary for feeling safe I suppose. I'm sure those with doubts feel good to have someone angry and shrill echoing their doubts. I don't think that's particularly conducive to talk. While it may keep some in the church I think it also leads many out. Which is why I think it not safe.

I'm talking about the communities in social media being safe places, as well as the content on those podcasts.  If you want to say the Mormon Stories podcast itself is more shrill towards orthodox believers, they don't have to listen to it, they can partake of the other less shrill podcasts.  Personally, I don't think any of its shrill, but for people that are sheltered from critical thinking about their religion then of course someone questioning a revered authority figure will come as a shock.  Modern church culture has raised members to be fearful of criticism and critical thinking about religion.  

[hope_for_things]

On 4/8/2017 at 11:15 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe it's a matter of the all-too-human tendency on the part of the listener to embrace what one already agrees with while resisting the hard truths. This, of course, is nothing new as pertaining to accepting the declarations and teachings of God's prophets. 

We should always be cautious of confirmation bias in everything we do, including in our listening to the ideas of church leaders.  This is why I try to force myself to listen to things I don't always agree with on first blush, because I want to consider why I don't agree and whether or not my reasoning is sound for disagreement, or whether the person I disagree with has an important point that I should listen to.  

The average Mormon typically thinks that they embrace everything that "God's prophets" declare.  In reality, they are out of step with many teachings, and this will always be the case as teachings are as diverse and divergent as the humans who voice them.  Everyone is influenced by ethnicity, personality and culture and as demonstrated with the Holland example, even each individual church leader is a walking contradiction at times.    

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm talking about the communities in social media being safe places, as well as the content on those podcasts.  If you want to say the Mormon Stories podcast itself is more shrill towards orthodox believers, they don't have to listen to it, they can partake of the other less shrill podcasts.  Personally, I don't think any of its shrill, but for people that are sheltered from critical thinking about their religion then of course someone questioning a revered authority figure will come as a shock.  Modern church culture has raised members to be fearful of criticism and critical thinking about religion.  

Exactly (your last sentence).  While I can't speak to every minute of Dehlin's 700+ hours of podcasting, I don't see anything "shrill" about the majority of the episodes.  Note:  I assume the description of Dehlin as "shrill" is intending the definition here because the literal definition wouldn't apply at all.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Can I just say that JD's podcasts are way too long? I don't get how he gets people to agree to sit down and talk for 5-6 hours.

I always listen to them while doing other activities (typically driving or exercising).  I can't imagine just sitting down to only listen... If I'm not doing something that requires my eyes/hands focused elsewhere, I would pick up my kindle and start reading.

As for the participants... the 5-6 hour podcasts are more rare but I agree, it is always a bit shocking to me that someone can still be coherently engaged after more than a couple hours of talking.  But I am also someone who can't handle phone conversations that go longer than 10 minutes.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm talking about the communities in social media being safe places, as well as the content on those podcasts.  If you want to say the Mormon Stories podcast itself is more shrill towards orthodox believers, they don't have to listen to it, they can partake of the other less shrill podcasts.  Personally, I don't think any of its shrill, but for people that are sheltered from critical thinking about their religion then of course someone questioning a revered authority figure will come as a shock.  Modern church culture has raised members to be fearful of criticism and critical thinking about religion.  

Well, as I noted, I stopped listening some time ago. However I don't think I'm a particularly sheltered person in terms of this. I think there was a pretty big double standard at play which is why many became rather disenchanted with his movement. Others may disagree. I wonder how many of those who are "traditional" believers yet well informed on all the controversies view him as fair versus pushing an agenda.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well, as I noted, I stopped listening some time ago. However I don't think I'm a particularly sheltered person in terms of this. I think there was a pretty big double standard at play which is why many became rather disenchanted with his movement. Others may disagree. I wonder how many of those who are "traditional" believers yet well informed on all the controversies view him as fair versus pushing an agenda.

What is the double-standard you are referring to?

Did many become disenchanted?  Mormon Stories just had their highest download month ever so it seems to still be growing in popularity.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Exactly (your last sentence).  While I can't speak to every minute of Dehlin's 700+ hours of podcasting, I don't see anything "shrill" about the majority of the episodes.  Note:  I assume the description of Dehlin as "shrill" is intending the definition here because the literal definition wouldn't apply at all.

I agree with you, I think he's been remarkably thoughtful, thinking of both believer perspectives and non believer perspectives.  Its a hard balancing act and nobody is perfect for sure, but I respect the attempts to be respectful.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well, as I noted, I stopped listening some time ago. However I don't think I'm a particularly sheltered person in terms of this. I think there was a pretty big double standard at play which is why many became rather disenchanted with his movement. Others may disagree. I wonder how many of those who are "traditional" believers yet well informed on all the controversies view him as fair versus pushing an agenda.

Sounds like a preference thing, there are things I used to listen to that I prefer not to today.  Certainly his current podcasts have evolved in focus and tone, I wouldn't expect them to stay stagnant.  (Mormon matters has been remarkably consistent, if you're not listening to Dan Witherspoon's work, he has excellent guests and discussions in a respectful tone).   As for whether "many became disenchanted", I'm not sure you're correct on that.  Some sure, but while some may be disenchanted, others may be more enchanted now.  

[clarkgoble]

Dan does a much better job compared to the episodes of Dehlin I listened to. I've always enjoyed my conversations with Dan and while I disagree vehemently with many of the guests, I think Dan has always handled things with aplomb - at least in all the episodes I've listened to.

To the question of Mormon Stories, I'm not sure popularity tells us much otherwise we'd have to judge Alex Jones and Infowars quite differently. That's not to say it hasn't improved since I last listened. I just have zero desire to find out. Maybe if he has an especially interesting guest I may listen to that. In any case, it's probably not worth continuing to debate something I stopped listening to more than six years ago. 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Dan does a much better job compared to the episodes of Dehlin I listened to. I've always enjoyed my conversations with Dan and while I disagree vehemently with many of the guests, I think Dan has always handled things with aplomb - at least in all the episodes I've listened to.

To the question of Mormon Stories, I'm not sure popularity tells us much otherwise we'd have to judge Alex Jones and Infowars quite differently. That's not to say it hasn't improved since I last listened. I just have zero desire to find out. Maybe if he has an especially interesting guest I may listen to that. In any case, it's probably not worth continuing to debate something I stopped listening to more than six years ago. 

I agree... no reason to debate it.  But perhaps you could stop tossing out disparaging comments (double-standard, many listeners disenchanted) if you have no interest in supporting your statements.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree... no reason to debate it.  But perhaps you could stop tossing out disparaging comments (double-standard, many listeners disenchanted) if you have no interest in supporting your statements.

My statements were about my perceptions from when I listened. I stand by them. Just as I stand by my statements about Dan as doing a great job. You may disagree with my judgments but they truly were my reaction to listening which was why I stopped. Now if there were transcripts of the shows we could perhaps have more of a discussion. Short of that there's little more to say. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We should always be cautious of confirmation bias in everything we do, including in our listening to the ideas of church leaders.  This is why I try to force myself to listen to things I don't always agree with on first blush, because I want to consider why I don't agree and whether or not my reasoning is sound for disagreement, or whether the person I disagree with has an important point that I should listen to.  

The average Mormon typically thinks that they embrace everything that "God's prophets" declare.  In reality, they are out of step with many teachings, and this will always be the case as teachings are as diverse and divergent as the humans who voice them.  Everyone is influenced by ethnicity, personality and culture and as demonstrated with the Holland example, even each individual church leader is a walking contradiction at times.    

I don't concede on your say-so alone that "the average Mormon" is "out of step with many teachings" of Church leaders." Nor do I concede that Elder Holland is "a walking contradiction," either in the incident you cite or at any other time.

Of course it may well be that you and I clash in our definitions of "the average Mormon." I define it as an observant, active, faithful and loyal member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You might have something else in mind altogether.

And mind, I would not agree that being less-than-perfect in one's compliance with Church teachings necessarily amounts to being "out of step" with them. To put it another way, I can be in full accord with a teaching, even if I need to work on applying it  more perfectly.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede on your say-so alone that "the average Mormon" is "out of step with many teachings" of Church leaders." Nor do I concede that Elder Holland is "a walking contradiction," either in the incident you cite or at any other time.

Of course it may well be that you and I clash in our definitions of "the average Mormon." I define it as an observant, active, faithful and loyal member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You might have something else in mind altogether.

And mind, I would not agree that being less-than-perfect in one's compliance with Church teachings necessarily amounts to being "out of step" with them. To put it another way, I can be in full accord with a teaching, even if I need to work on applying it  more perfectly.

 

 

I like this thought. Does this mean I can be "in-step" with church teachings while failing to keep the word of wisdom (drinking, smoking etc)? Would failure to comply with this teaching simply make me "less than perfect" but not "out-of-step"?

I like the idea but I kind of doubt most active Mormons would view it the same way.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede on your say-so alone that "the average Mormon" is "out of step with many teachings" of Church leaders." Nor do I concede that Elder Holland is "a walking contradiction," either in the incident you cite or at any other time.

Of course it may well be that you and I clash in our definitions of "the average Mormon." I define it as an observant, active, faithful and loyal member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You might have something else in mind altogether.

And mind, I would not agree that being less-than-perfect in one's compliance with Church teachings necessarily amounts to being "out of step" with them. To put it another way, I can be in full accord with a teaching, even if I need to work on applying it  more perfectly.

From the vantage point of the average Mormon, they are in full alignment with Church leaders.  My points all go back to your original comment about how the human mind works.  That people tend to agree with what they already believe and they ignore those elements that they don't agree with.  

Because humans are also inconsistent creatures with poor memories, humans contradict themselves all the time (myself included).  Its not intentional, we are self delusional in thinking that we are the epitome of consistency.  

Since the average Mormon doesn't notice the divergence of opinions expressed by church leaders, they also have no idea that they aren't in compliance with all the teachings of leaders, because they don't even notice the ideas that they don't already agree with.  Expand this idea into scriptural exegesis and all the sudden you have a hodge podge of teachings from hundreds of sources, all with very unique and divergent perspectives.  

So, its not a matter of intent or perfection on the part of the average Mormon, its a matter of impossibility.  

Edited April 10, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I like this thought. Does this mean I can be "in-step" with church teachings while failing to keep the word of wisdom (drinking, smoking etc)? Would failure to comply with this teaching simply make me "less than perfect" but not "out-of-step"?

I like the idea but I kind of doubt most active Mormons would view it the same way.

It would depend imo on why you weren't complying.  If the desire was to comply, but you were unable to fully do so because of addiction, I don't see any reason not to label "in-step".  If there was no desire to comply and instead just an awareness of the teaching, then that would be not "in-step".

I am not sure why you would doubt most active Mormon would view agreement with teachings coupled with imperfect compliance as "out of step".

Edited April 10, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

It would be fairly difficult to understand Dehlin and/or his podcasts having listened to only 7 hours (less than 1%).  Not that you are claiming such an understanding... just speaking generally to the board.

If you chose 7 hours of podcasts that were back in those early years (he began in 2005) you'd encounter someone very different than the podcast host in the middle years and again a new host in the latter years when he is trying to focus his attention on goal that is entirely different than where he started.

I had not heard of John Dehlin back in 2005, so am not concerned with his raison d'etre at that time.  I see no point in wasting more of my time on someone whose work is so deeply flawed as Dehilin's, and I have explained my reasons for that to him personally and on this board.  I don't buy his excuses for his failures and have told him so.  As an academic, he has certain obligations which I hold him to, but he is certainly free to adopt worst practices in interview techniques and skills.  His effort at censorship was particularly egregious.  It is up to him to comply with scholarly standards.

Gregory L. Smith, “Dubious ‘Mormon’ Stories: A Twenty-First Century Construction of Exit Narratives,” Interpreter Foundation, Feb 23, 2013, 1-100, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf .

Gregory L. Smith, “Return of the Unread Review: A Mormon Story,” Interpreter Foundation, Feb 23, 2013, 1-67, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf .

Ralph Hancock, “Failing the Progressive Quiz: A Response to Dehlin,” InterpreterBlog, Oct 9, 2013, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/failing-the-progressive-quiz-a-response-to-dehlin/#more-3993 .  

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From the vantage point of the average Mormon, they are in full alignment with Church leaders.  My points all go back to your original comment about how the human mind works.  That people tend to agree with what they already believe and they ignore those elements that they don't agree with.  

 

That's not precisely what I said. I said it's human nature to embrace what one already agrees with and to resist, dispute or contend with the teaching of hard or inconvenient truths -- which is what you appear to have done as pertaining to Elder Holland's teachings.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I had not heard of John Dehlin back in 2005, so am not concerned with his raison d'etre at that time.  I see no point in wasting more of my time on someone whose work is so deeply flawed as Dehilin's, and I have explained my reasons for that to him personally and on this board.  I don't buy his excuses for his failures and have told him so.  As an academic, he has certain obligations which I hold him to, but he is certainly free to adopt worst practices in interview techniques and skills.  His effort at censorship was particularly egregious.  It is up to him to comply with scholarly standards.

Gregory L. Smith, “Dubious ‘Mormon’ Stories: A Twenty-First Century Construction of Exit Narratives,” Interpreter Foundation, Feb 23, 2013, 1-100, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf .

Gregory L. Smith, “Return of the Unread Review: A Mormon Story,” Interpreter Foundation, Feb 23, 2013, 1-67, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf .

Ralph Hancock, “Failing the Progressive Quiz: A Response to Dehlin,” InterpreterBlog, Oct 9, 2013, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/failing-the-progressive-quiz-a-response-to-dehlin/#more-3993 .  

Dehlin is not an "academic" of Mormon history/theology so I don't hold him that kind of standard.  He worked in IT and then pursued a degree in psychology.  I don't think he has ever presented his podcasts as scholarly works.  They aren't.  They are Dehlin (and sometimes others) talking to people, discussing their "Mormon stories".

I think censorship is a strong accusation.  My impression is that his censorship is on par with the LDS Church, meaning that both have worked hard to present the what they feel is relevant to their message.

 

[clarkgoble]

Quote

The average Mormon typically thinks that they embrace everything that "God's prophets" declare.  In reality, they are out of step with many teachings

I bet if you ask the "average" Mormon what they have to repent of or at least improve on they could list a litany of things. Heck, ask them if they did their home teaching last month and whether they feel they are giving 100% to their calling. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It would depend imo on why you weren't complying.  If the desire was to comply, but you were unable to fully do so because of addiction, I don't see any reason not to label "in-step".  If there was no desire to comply and instead just an awareness of the teaching, then that would be not "in-step".

I am not sure why you would doubt most active Mormon would view agreement with teachings coupled with imperfect compliance as "out of step".

He said it would not be out of step. So he was claiming that agreement with teachings coupled with imperfect compliance was "in-step".

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

He said it would not be out of step. So he was claiming that agreement with teachings coupled with imperfect compliance was "in-step".

Yeah, I got it reversed.  Will correct that.  Brain in low gear today.

I think most active Mormons would agree with Scott's definition.

Rereading my comment..now it seems right to me.  You seemed to be disagreeing with him.

whatever I wrote, I mean I see Scott's view as pretty typical and am rather surprised if someone sees it as atypical of faithful Mormons.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

He said it would not be out of step. So he was claiming that agreement with teachings coupled with imperfect compliance was "in-step".

Yes. And calm appears to believe that as well. I'm not sure why you're having a problem with it.

If, for example, I'm in full accord with the concept of home teaching, yet I recognize the need to improve my own performance in this respect and it is my intent to try to do better, it could not be fairly or accurately said that I am "out of step" with the Church's teachings with regard to home teaching. I don't know why you think I would be out of step.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I bet if you ask the "average" Mormon what they have to repent of or at least improve on they could list a litany of things. Heck, ask them if they did their home teaching last month and whether they feel they are giving 100% to their calling. 

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, and, if I'm not, feel free to clarify.

But you, with hjw and hft, appear not to comprehend the difference between wholehearted rejection of a teaching on the one hand and, on the other, acceptance of the teaching accompanied by a recognition of one's own need to do better at applying it.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, and, if I'm not, feel free to clarify.

But you, with hjw and hft, appear not to comprehend the difference between wholehearted rejection of a teaching on the one hand and, on the other, acceptance of the teaching accompanied by a recognition of one's own need to do better at applying it.

I am reading it as Clark agreeing more in line with you and me.  I will be interested to find out which of us is right.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, and, if I'm not, feel free to clarify.

But you, with hjw and hft, appear not to comprehend the difference between wholehearted rejection of a teaching on the one hand and, on the other, acceptance of the teaching accompanied by a recognition of one's own need to do better at applying it.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what is claimed. It seems to me that in terms of practices we ought do, often we obey whether we have a knowledge that its the right thing (and often even when we know it's not exactly the right thing to do but isn't a wrong thing to do - if you see the distinction). "Doctrine" is a pretty ambiguous term ranging in meaning from ideal teachings of the church to consistent points asserted. If you mean the key doctrines repeated over time then I think the vast majority of members agree with them. If you mean lesser known items individual authorities have taught, like evolution is a doctrine of the devil or Adam God theory, then of course many reject those claims. But I'm not sure it would be fair to include things like that or the idea that Catholicism is the Church of the Devil as doctrines of the church.

Perhaps, as a point of clarification since you apparent don't mean practices not everyone lives up to, you could specify which doctrines you are thinking of.

Edited April 10, 2017 by clarkgoble