Protecting Mormons online

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I guess what I'd expect, maybe Dehlin didn't really expect to put a stop to it at all.  He simply knew by making a fuss about it and trying to keep it from being published he'd get more pub.  He'd see more influence be gained. 

Maybe Dehlin played Smith for the fool.  Afterall, who has read Smith's piece and has been convinced that Dehlin is trouble who already did not see Dehlin as trouble?  I dare say...no one (particularly counting the 18 people who made it through the piece). 

I don't have a dog in this fight, I sat by Dehlin for awhile at the last FM conference and found him to be very personable. But...Interpreter and FM do get feedback. And yes, many, many people read it and were grateful to have a more complete picture of how such a public figure was presenting himself.

BTW, this isn't a defender of the church vs attacker of the church thing like it is being portrayed here. Dehlin has burned countless bridges. Usually the Bloggernacle is a good indicator of what is going on in progressive and anti-apologetic circles of the church. Try to find anything positive there, if he is even mentioned. What is happening is that the yelling has been going on for so long that even ardent critics are tired of the disinformation. I am told by my exmo sister that sites like RFM now do not put up with fake news coming from their side much more than they ever did when it came from our side. I think we are thankfully entering an era where people want solid information. 

And I'm going to say it one more time. That paper was done in a dry academic manner. How anyone can look at that many footnotes and think is was anything but a scholarly attempt is mind boggling, especially when it is accompanied by an admission that the complainer hasn't read it for a long time....or read it at all.  It isn't like the author didn't teach at a medical school or anything to know how to produce an academic article. It leaves me wanting to say....seriously, folks?

Not one person that I recall has talked about the actual content. Is it time for CFRs? 

[Calm]

 

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wait, are you saying that Dehlin used his podcast and facebook page to further his own agenda?

You see, this holds absolutely zero surprise for me because I never expected otherwise.  I'm not sure why anyone would.

 

 

It is the methods he uses to further his agenda that Kevin and I and others have been pointing out as problematic.

That you reduce Kevin's thoughtful and detailed post to this strawman is troubling.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Posting the leak and repeating over and over how horribly damaging it is and how it will tear apart families before giving the Church a chance to clarify intent and application is not simply reacting in my book.

I don't disagree that the Church has contributed to fanning the flames.  That does not excuse Dehlin's behaviour in promoting fear and hatred (And given his background in psychology and awareness of the social conversation and thus his ability to predict the most likely result of his actions, it is intentional).  Nor does it prevent his efforts from retarding growth rather than promoting it.  Growth does not occur as well in an environment of fear, which he well knows since he points this out when he thinks it is the Church causing fear.

I have never even been close to suggesting anyone should sit down and be quiet.  If you think I am suggesting that, you haven't been paying much attention.

The Church had published the policy, in its original form, prior to it being "leaked".  They had the opportunity to "clarify" prior to it being leaked and chose not to.

I remained convinced that it was because of the actions of Brown, McKnight, and Dehlin that the policy was changed the following week.  Without the outrage created by publicizing the policy, I don't think we would have had the Elder Christofferson interview on the subject nor the FP letter.

I definitely don't see you as one who would tell anyone to be quiet about an issue but it feels like that is what you are suggesting that Dehlin and others do in the case of LGBT and Mormon conflicts.  There is much in the way of hurt and pain that has come from the Church's efforts against marriage equality and the policy.  I don't think that suppressing that hurt and pain is the right way to get to constructive dialogue.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can it be done in a scholarly fashion in your opinion?

Probably.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

It is the methods he uses to further his agenda that Kevin and I and others have been pointing out as problematic.

That you reduce Kevin's thoughtful and detailed post to this strawman is troubling.

We've gone on and on about this... not just in this particular thread but in many others, as you know.  What I get frustrated with is this attempt to demand that Dehlin be something he is not and has not claimed to be.

He has always presented his own narrative.  It's biased.  It reflects his journey and his personal agenda.  He alone chooses his guests and how he chooses to interview them.  He's been an open book about his beliefs and how they have changed and developed.  He has a particular audience that he no doubt caters to.  And he has found a need in the Mormon community which he is trying to serve.

I don't like that he censors comments on his pages.  But they are his pages.  How many faithful LDS sites (and church owned sites) also moderate their comment pages and remove comments that they don't like?

His interviews are often sloppy and prejudiced.  I wish they weren't but I understand who Dehlin is.  

When it comes down to it, I would have loved for the Church to have filled the void that Mormon Stories filled but the Church refused... and Dehlin, with all his own imperfections, stepped in.  He helped to save my marriage and my church membership.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I missed the part about Dehlin suppressing the Smith piece. Where do we read about that.

BTW- it's good to have you back

 

You can read both Greg Smith's paper and his own analysis of what became known as "the Dehlin affair" at the Interpreter website here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

Of course, Dehlin likely has his own rendition of events. I'll leave it to you to search that out on your own.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We've gone on and on about this... not just in this particular thread but in many others, as you know.  What I get frustrated with is this attempt to demand that Dehlin be something he is not and has not claimed to be.

We differ on what he has claimed to be.

"He's been an open book about his beliefs"

I think Greg's piece demonstrates he has not always been so and this is because he has a couple of audiences he caters to, imo.

"How many faithful LDS sites (and church owned sites) also moderate their comment pages and remove comments that they don't like?"

How many of these sites complain about others not presenting balanced views or others' transparency?

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Probably.

So why wasn't Greg's scholarly?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I definitely don't see you as one who would tell anyone to be quiet about an issue but it feels like that is what you are suggesting that Dehlin and others do in the case of LGBT and Mormon conflicts.  There is much in the way of hurt and pain that has come from the Church's efforts against marriage equality and the policy.  I don't think that suppressing that hurt and pain is the right way to get to constructive dialogue.

Your feeling is an inaccurate interpretation of my position.  That I think they should modify their approach to be less intentionally inflammatory is not telling them or anyone else to be quiet.

Inflamming gets attention, not true change imo.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The Church had published the policy, in its original form, prior to it being "leaked".  They had the opportunity to "clarify" prior to it being leaked and chose not to.

I remained convinced that it was because of the actions of Brown, McKnight, and Dehlin that the policy was changed the following week.  Without the outrage created by publicizing the policy, I don't think we would have had the Elder Christofferson interview on the subject nor the FP letter.

 

Oh, no, no, no. As one who tracks these things, I can tell you without reservation that this new policy caused unprecedented upset within the ranks of the church. I had not seen anything like it. Really, when have you ever seen the church change anything in a week because detractors were on its heels?  

I am of the opinion that had this been left alone, it would have been modified after feedback because a lot of those unhappy members were SPs and bishops. And I put that squarely in the leaker's lap. A lot of the time, I do have to acknowledge that publicity has speeded up needed change. But it is hard for me to see where outside agitators can be serious about wanting to destroy the church ( that is the goal) and then claiming to "help" those in it stay. I do not think the welfare of those affected by the policy was anywhere near the top of the agitator's list. And it is the same doublespeak that was documented in the Dehlin article. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your feeling is an inaccurate interpretation of my position.  That I think they should modify their approach to be less intentionally inflammatory is not telling them or anyone else to be quiet.

Inflamming gets attention, not true change imo.

That's fair and I can understand that.  Although I disagree that in the case of the church, less inflammatory would get change.  I think attention is required in this case.

Can you comprehend the hurt and pain that many feel and have felt for many years?  I think that is what is behind the inflammatory language.  I don't think it is so much "intentionally" inflammatory as it is a reflection of the strong emotions that they feel.

I can't put into words the anguish that I have felt over many of the Church's actions regarding LGBT persons.  It is so incredibly painful that there have been times where it took everything I had to drag myself to church on Sunday.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh, no, no, no. As one who tracks these things, I can tell you without reservation that this new policy caused unprecedented upset within the ranks of the church. I had not seen anything like it. Really, when have you ever seen the church change anything in a week because detractors were on its heels?  

I am of the opinion that had this been left alone, it would have been modified after feedback because a lot of those unhappy members were SPs and bishops. And I put that squarely in the leaker's lap. A lot of the time, I do have to acknowledge that publicity has speeded up needed change. But it is hard for me to see where outside agitators can be serious about wanting to destroy the church ( that is the goal) and then claiming to "help" those in it stay. I do not think the welfare of those affected by the policy was anywhere near the top of the agitator's list. And it is the same doublespeak that was documented in the Dehlin article. 

I completely disagree and I was serving as a bishop's counselor at the time.  I observed the reaction within our bishopric and stake presidency to the original policy and it was one of acceptance because it came from the Brethen.

I think the push back within the ranks of the church came because so many who don't hold copies of CHI1 were upset and pushing back in addition to the Bp's and SP's who may have also pushed back.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

We differ on what he has claimed to be.

"He's been an open book about his beliefs"

I think Greg's piece demonstrates he has not always been so and this is because he has a couple of audiences he caters to, imo.

"How many faithful LDS sites (and church owned sites) also moderate their comment pages and remove comments that they don't like?"

How many of these sites complain about others not presenting balanced views or others' transparency?

Are you saying that because Dehlin complains about the church presenting a false narrative, he shouldn't be allowed to moderate his comments?

Mormon Interpreter moderates comments on their site.  LDS Living does as well.  I believe, though am not certain, that LDS Church managed social media is also moderated.  

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

So why wasn't Greg's scholarly?

In reading Greg's article it didn't come across as an attempt to understand what biases Dehlin might have in a scholarly way.  It seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit him personally, not his work.

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I completely disagree and I was serving as a bishop's counselor at the time.  I observed the reaction within our bishopric and stake presidency to the original policy and it was one of acceptance because it came from the Brethen.

I think the push back within the ranks of the church came because so many who don't hold copies of CHI1 were upset and pushing back in addition to the Bp's and SP's who may have also pushed back.

Eh, the upset just might be because almost everyone has family members who are gay. Just because they aren't joining the agitators doesn't mean they aren't....upset. Or would have tried to do something through church channels had they been given the opportunity before the church was forced into justifying something they were obviously thinking would be as uneventful as the polygamy policy it mirrored. I think this will have to be modified again, I don't think the Lord sent them a fax as to how to write it up. But it will now be later than sooner. Thanks, agitators. 

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In reading Greg's article it didn't come across as an attempt to understand what biases Dehlin might have in a scholarly way.  It seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit him personally, not his work.

CFR

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

Can you comprehend the hurt and pain that many feel and have felt for many years?  I

No, I am totally clueless to the experience of my AIDS killed brother in law, my gay nephew, and my bisexual daughter.

I have only labeled Dehlin "intentionally inflammatory" iirc and I do this based on his background where he as a trained psychologist who claims he wants to improve connections and relationships knows better.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are you saying that because Dehlin complains about the church presenting a false narrative, he shouldn't be allowed to moderate his comments?

Mormon Interpreter moderates comments on their site.  LDS Living does as well.  I believe, though am not certain, that LDS Church managed social media is also moderated.  

Really. Give it up. I can't even count the number of people who have said something benign in disagreement and have been banned. Anybody who can still go there takes snapshots if they comment (which is why we know they weren't behaving badly.) It is a running joke now.   

How many people do you know who have been banned? And here is the difference, pro-Mormon sites aren't claiming that they are unbiased or representing all points of view equally. (Nor does scholarship....)  They do not make demands of transparency for everyone else but themselves. It isn't about him having the right, it is about the hypocrisy  and double standard that surround it. All that is required is to be honest about it and not make demands upon others you aren't willing to maintain yourself. 

Go to the Bloggernacle and start this up. Tell us how it goes.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In reading Greg's article it didn't come across as an attempt to understand what biases Dehlin might have in a scholarly way.  It seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit him personally, not his work.

I quite disagree. His intent clearly strikes me as what I have already expressed: to shine the light of scrutiny and reasoned analysis on Dehlin's enterprise.

The impression I got back when I first read it -- and that remains with me -- is that the piece was fair, accurate, well-documented and well-presented. And it does focus on Dehlin's output, not him personally. If the net result is that Dehlinism ends up being discredited, that is attributable more to the nature and character of the Dehlin venture than to any behavior on Smith's part.

Fortunately, Greg Smith's piece is still online in its entirety for individuals to judge for themselves (see the link I provided).

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are you saying that because Dehlin complains about the church presenting a false narrative, he shouldn't be allowed to moderate his comments?

Mormon Interpreter moderates comments on their site.  LDS Living does as well.  I believe, though am not certain, that LDS Church managed social media is also moderated.  

Someone who attacks other websites for not being balanced (such as FM) or complains about not being allowed by faithful Saints to be part of the discussion because of simple disagreement, who then deletes educated and civil comments which challenge his own factual claims...I call that hypocritical.

If MI or any other site does the same (complain on the one hand, act the same way on the other), I would call them hypocrites as well.

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

Eh, the upset just might be because almost everyone has family members who are gay. Just because they aren't joining the agitators doesn't mean they aren't....upset. Or would have tried to do something through church channels had they been given the opportunity before the church was forced into justifying something they were obviously thinking would be as uneventful as the polygamy policy it mirrored. I think this will have to be modified again, I don't think the Lord sent them a fax as to how to write it up. But it will now be later than sooner. Thanks, agitators. 

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that another change to new policy will come later because of "the agitators".   Had it not been for the publicizing of the policy and all the attention it got, the first change likely would not have come that quickly... if at all. 

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, juliann said:

CFR

The link to it has been posted. 

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I am totally clueless to the experience of my AIDS killed brother in law, my gay nephew, and my bisexual daughter.

I have only labeled Dehlin "intentionally inflammatory" iirc and I do this based on his background where he as a trained psychologist who claims he wants to improve connections and relationships knows better.

My question wasn't meant to be insulting. Just a question since I don't know you or your thoughts on the matter.  I'm sorry if it came across as callous. 

I don't think Dehlin intends to be inflammatory but I do think he speaks out from a place of passion and concern.  While I realize you feel he is misguided, I think his intentions are sincere.  

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, juliann said:

Really. Give it up. I can't even count the number of people who have said something benign in disagreement and have been banned. Anybody who can still go there takes snapshots if they comment (which is why we know they weren't behaving badly.) It is a running joke now.   

How many people do you know who have been banned? And here is the difference, pro-Mormon sites aren't claiming that they are unbiased or representing all points of view equally. (Nor does scholarship....)  They do not make demands of transparency for everyone else but themselves. It isn't about him having the right, it is about the hypocrisy  and double standard that surround it. All that is required is to be honest about it and not make demands upon others you aren't willing to maintain yourself. 

Go to the Bloggernacle and start this up. Tell us how it goes.

I don't think Dehlin has claimed he is unbiased.  I'm only aware of him asking for financial transparency from the church.  And OSF does provide that transparency. 

How does he ban people from his website?

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone who attacks other websites for not being balanced (such as FM) or complains about not being allowed by faithful Saints to be part of the discussion because of simple disagreement, who then deletes educated and civil comments which challenge his own factual claims...I call that hypocritical.

If MI or any other site does the same (complain on the one hand, act the same way on the other), I would call them hypocrites as well.

I'm curious where one sees this side of Dehlin. I've been a listener to his podcast for about 8 years.  And I've been on MSPC (Facebook) for probably over 5 years.  I've been a Facebook friend of Dehlin for around that same amount of time.  I have not seen any evidence of what you describe.