John Dehlin's podcast and aftermath

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Go get a life.  This is My Board.

Now ladies...actually, the board is mine..you just don't know it...ar.ar.ar..ar..

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/28/2017 at 4:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

Considering his lack of prep, I find it very believable.   He invites someone and they arrive and he jumps behind the mike.   Pretty obviousl.

Oh, he preps enough to ask hardball questions ... at least of his guests who are friendly toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, he preps enough to ask hardball questions ... at least of his guests who are friendly toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

The vast majority of Dehlin's guests are friendly to the church.

And friendly or not, he generally will play "devil's advocate", describing the more orthodox position, at some point during the interview to challenge some of their assumptions.

[Kenngo1969]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The vast majority of Dehlin's guests are friendly to the church.

And friendly or not, he generally will play "devil's advocate", describing the more orthodox position, at some point during the interview to challenge some of their assumptions.

OK.  I haven't gotten the impression (from what admittedly-little exposure I have to him and his work, and/or from discussion among others who ought to know) that he's very interested in a level playing field, but I'm really not interested enough to take the time to listen to thousands of hours of podcasts to find out.  (The impression I get is that he's really not very well read on some apologetic positions.)  I'll take your word for it.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  I haven't gotten the impression (from what admittedly-little exposure I have to him and his work, and/or from discussion among others who ought to know) that he's very interested in a level playing field, but I'm really not interested enough to take the time to listen to thousands of hours of podcasts to find out.  (The impression I get is that he's really not very well read on some apologetic positions.)  I'll take your word for it.  

It makes sense that you have gotten that impression.  Many people post about him, like you, without being familiar with his work.  It's rather unfair to him to make such conclusions without having spent sufficient time listening to him.  But, thank you for taking my word on it.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It makes sense that you have gotten that impression.  Many people post about him, like you, without being familiar with his work.  It's rather unfair to him to make such conclusions without having spent sufficient time listening to him.  But, thank you for taking my word on it.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to thousands of hours of podcasts, but thank you for the very kind invitation, all the same!  

[juliann]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The vast majority of Dehlin's guests are friendly to the church.

And friendly or not, he generally will play "devil's advocate", describing the more orthodox position, at some point during the interview to challenge some of their assumptions.

  http://www.mormonstories.org/episodes-list-chronological/

A steady diet of controversial topics that emphasize negative aspects of the church may be informative or even necessary, but it is certainly not friendly. Unless you only mean that they are speaking in calm tones and not cursing the church or something. 

It would be a rare person who would consider anyone who only criticizes and points out their flaws to be friendly, even if it is done in the nicest way possible. Friendly requires more positive than negative in the long run. 

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It makes sense that you have gotten that impression.  Many people post about him, like you, without being familiar with his work.  It's rather unfair to him to make such conclusions without having spent sufficient time listening to him.  But, thank you for taking my word on it.

 I admit to not having listened to a lot of his podcasts, but I have listened to some   My overall impressions:

1.   It seems he uses the podcast format because he's just plain lazy.  Podcasts in general seem to be media for people who want to be entertained and are not readers.  Generally speaking.  Podcasts don't come with footnotes.  

2.  He does seem to be lazy.  In several of the podcasts with authors, it does not appear that he's read the author's work.  (Larry King did the same thing.)   In fact, I've heard him say he dislikes reading and studying, which may speak to his inability to pass his licensing.  

3.   He often wants to use his interview subjects as a means to criticize the church on matters unrelated to the interviewee.   I was really interested in Brant Gardner's podcast regarding Brant's book(s) about the translation process which seemed to run against the typical FARMS view.   I read the books with interest; they changed my view of the Book of Mormon for the better and more faithful, in my opinion.  But John just wanted to pepper Brant with irrelevant faithlessness nowhere in his book.

4.  John doesn't attempt very much it seems to edit his podcasts down to a decent length.  

That's it.   Some of his stuff is very interesting and I wouldn't get it elsewhere.  But it isn't science, it isn't history and it isn't good journalism. It is entertainment.  So is the Walking Dead, or Keeping Up with The Khardasians.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 0:36 PM, rpn said:

There is an exemption for intangible religious benefits, that is not available to other charitable organizations.

No there is not.  For example if some Church is having a fund raising dinner that costs $250 per couple and the value of the dinner is $50 per couple my tax deductible donation is $150,  There is not a special religious exemptions written in to the Internal Revenue Code.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

  http://www.mormonstories.org/episodes-list-chronological/

A steady diet of controversial topics that emphasize negative aspects of the church may be informative or even necessary, but it is certainly not friendly. Unless you only mean that they are speaking in calm tones and not cursing the church or something. 

It would be a rare person who would consider anyone who only criticizes and points out their flaws to be friendly, even if it is done in the nicest way possible. Friendly requires more positive than negative in the long run. 

Why does your criticism of Mormon Stories remind me of this?

 

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 6:44 PM, mfbukowski said:

Considering his lack of prep, I find it very believable.   He invites someone and they arrive and he jumps behind the mike.   Pretty obviousl.

Can you tell us how many MS podcasts you have listened to in order to make this pretty obvious call?

[juliann]

Quote

Why does your criticism of Mormon Stories remind me of this?

I have no idea.  It is a rather creepy comparison, actually. 

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I have no idea.  It is a rather creepy comparison, actually. 

Sigh.  OK.  I'm out.  Now you can go find someone else to pass judgment on.  It seems to be what you do best.

[Teancum]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 5:40 PM, rpn said:

It isn't clear from the podcast or documents how much the guy  [Craig who is a Board member who was on the podcast] does.  He was introduced as the person who could address OSF's finance issues.   And he IS head of the Board Finance Committee, and a CPA.    JD does identify him as the one who did the financial statements also released the same day as the podcast.   That statement says in 2016, OSF spent $4300 in accounting and legal fees.   I would think that wouldn't cover much more than a bookkeeper's standard $200 retainer for monthly billpaying and bank statement reconciliation.   Nor is there anyone on the OSF webpage  identified as in change of accounting or bookkeeping.

An audit of a small NFPs financial statement  as well as preparing the Form 990 can run from $4k on the low end to $12k on the high end. I an a treasurer for a small NFP that likely has a bit more activity than OFS.  Our audit and Form 990 prep fees run about $5k.  And oh by the way we always extend the Form 990.  By they way the auditing firm is NOT responsible for the day to day books of the NFP. Nor do they need to drill into every transaction. There is scope and materiality that comes into play. You may want to just leave this alone since you clearly don't understand this area.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sigh.  OK.  I'm out....

 I thought law school taught you don't ask questions you don't know the answer to....

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

 I admit to not having listened to a lot of his podcasts, but I have listened to some   My overall impressions:

1.   It seems he uses the podcast format because he's just plain lazy.  Podcasts in general seem to be media for people who want to be entertained and are not readers.  Generally speaking.  Podcasts don't come with footnotes.  

2.  He does seem to be lazy.  In several of the podcasts with authors, it does not appear that he's read the author's work.  (Larry King did the same thing.)   In fact, I've heard him say he dislikes reading and studying, which may speak to his inability to pass his licensing.  

3.   He often wants to use his interview subjects as a means to criticize the church on matters unrelated to the interviewee.   I was really interested in Brant Gardner's podcast regarding Brant's book(s) about the translation process which seemed to run against the typical FARMS view.   I read the books with interest; they changed my view of the Book of Mormon for the better and more faithful, in my opinion.  But John just wanted to pepper Brant with irrelevant faithlessness nowhere in his book.

4.  John doesn't attempt very much it seems to edit his podcasts down to a decent length.  

That's it.   Some of his stuff is very interesting and I wouldn't get it elsewhere.  But it isn't science, it isn't history and it isn't good journalism. It is entertainment.  So is the Walking Dead, or Keeping Up with The Khardasians.  

1:  I have listened to plenty of podcasts where it is clear with podcaster is not "lazy" and has done leg work before they interview their guest.  New casts and news articles don't come with footnotes either.  For something to have value does not mean in has to be a scholarly tome.

2:  You seem to be lazy as well. How about you document how many of the OSF podcasts you have listened to. And oh by they way in order for us to classify you as non lazy please provide a paper with footnotes to document your conclusions. Or are they simply you biased speculations?  Also a CFY for Dehlin saying he dislikes reading and studying that then leads to your specious ad hominem about his licensing issues.

3: I heard the Brant Gardner interview and conclude much differently than you. If ever there was an interview that convinced my intelligent people when faced with the evidence need to jump through mental gyrations and hoops to defend and still believe it was this one. Thank you Brant Gardner.

 

4:  Well here we agree. His podcasts are WAAAY to long most of the time.

 

 

 

[probablyHagoth7]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I thought law school taught you don't ask questions you don't know the answer to....

Is that really what they teach? If so, why?

Other than when in Socratic mode, I thought not knowing the answer was the very reason for a question.

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I thought law school taught you don't ask questions you don't know the answer to....

 

I simply forgot that in Juliann's world, everything is about gender ... everything. That's Rule #1.  And Rule #2 is that we men ... all of us ... have a secret desire to dominate, to subjugate, to marginalize, and otherwise to mistreat women all of the time.  By those who are perceptive and intelligent enough to have eyes to see, subtle indications of this latent desire can be seen in every single thing we post. (But of course, we men are neither perceptive enough nor intelligent enough to realize this: To put it in the starkest terms, we're dull and stupid ... all of us.) And Rule #3 is that if it isn't gender related, see Rule #1.  And Rule #4 is that if no desire to dominate, subjugate, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam seems evident in a particular man's post, see Rule #2.

Now, I really am out.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1:  I have listened to plenty of podcasts where it is clear with podcaster is not "lazy" and has done leg work before they interview their guest.  New casts and news articles don't come with footnotes either.  For something to have value does not mean in has to be a scholarly tome.

 

Of course not. But it does matter how the podcast is being represented. I'll give an example. I listened to Lindsay Hansen Park's polygamy series, it was an impressive undertaking. She quoted, or paraphrased, scholar's work and favored certain scholars. Had you not read those scholars or weren't familiar with their school of thought, it sounded as if they were all of the same mind. She did tend to go for the negative (not complaining because that is what has been left out.) After she had used some names to back up stuff, it created the impression that these few scholars she used supported her POV.  She then used a story of questionable provenance, one which I was familiar enough with to know was iffy. And when I checked around, even Compton, one of those oft used names, didn't consider the source reliable. She now gives her sources. 

So if I'm listening for "truth" or "enlightenment" rather than to be entertained or get new ideas that I then will have to source,  I would never put much stock into podcasts that are not giving sources. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

3.   He often wants to use his interview subjects as a means to criticize the church on matters unrelated to the interviewee.   I was really interested in Brant Gardner's podcast regarding Brant's book(s) about the translation process which seemed to run against the typical FARMS view.   I read the books with interest; they changed my view of the Book of Mormon for the better and more faithful, in my opinion.  But John just wanted to pepper Brant with irrelevant faithlessness nowhere in his book.

 I've no particular opinion on the thread topic. It seems an internal matter for the most part. While I have differences from Dehlin I think he should be free to run his organization as he wants. With regards to the podcast, I've typically just listened when particular people I'm interested in come on the show. I have to agree with Bob that the Gardner interview was pretty embarrassing and colors a lot of how I view the podcast. I know many say that isn't typical though. But I found similar things on the other episodes I listened to. To the point I have a hard time working up the interest to listen now.

To technical discussions, I think it's hard to remember all the sources off the top of ones head. Which is why I think podcasts can be limited beyond the broad points. To really challenge the nitty gritty really requires one be able to think about responses a bit. Most people just can't recall sources off the top of their head. (I certainly can't) I'm not sure I'd particularly fault Dehlin for that. To me it's not laziness so much as just the inherent limits of this particular medium.

Edited May 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Kenngo1969]

41 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Is that really what they teach? If so, why?

Other than when in Socratic mode, I thought not knowing the answer was the very reason for a question.

You're quite right that the Socratic Method is less about the answer than it is about the questions.  Philosophical discussions are fascinating; anyone who's been to law school has had his or her fair share of those, although a professor thinking s/he knows how to use the Socratic Method effectively, on the one hand, and actually using it effectively, on the other hand, are two different things.  (I had one professor, in particular, who baffled many of my student colleagues: Many of them thought he was simply engaging in some sort of pointless intellectual torture, when, in fact, if one actually took the time to listen and to try to ferret out what he was doing, his use of the Socratic Method actually was effective as a teaching tool ... which, to be quite blunt, is more than I can say for at least some of his colleagues.)  

Philosophical discussions, however, may or may not teach one what s/he needs to know to effectively practice law, and as fascinating as such discussions can be, it's a source of no small consternation to would-be members of the Bar to realize that they've just spent three years in law school chasing professors down intellectual rabbit holes without necessarily learning anything which will help them pass the Bar Exam, and to realize, further, that for that, they'll likely need to fork over an additional few thousand dollars for preparation materials and to spend dozens more hours of study. 

Now, that having been said, the first rule of effective cross-examination (that is, of questioning a witness who is adverse to you) is, "Don't ask a question you don't already know the answer to."  

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

1:  I have listened to plenty of podcasts where it is clear with podcaster is not "lazy" and has done leg work before they interview their guest.  New casts and news articles don't come with footnotes either.  For something to have value does not mean in has to be a scholarly tome.

2:  You seem to be lazy as well. How about you document how many of the OSF podcasts you have listened to. And oh by they way in order for us to classify you as non lazy please provide a paper with footnotes to document your conclusions. Or are they simply you biased speculations?  Also a CFY for Dehlin saying he dislikes reading and studying that then leads to your specious ad hominem about his licensing issues.

3: I heard the Brant Gardner interview and conclude much differently than you. If ever there was an interview that convinced my intelligent people when faced with the evidence need to jump through mental gyrations and hoops to defend and still believe it was this one. Thank you Brant Gardner.

 

4:  Well here we agree. His podcasts are WAAAY to long most of the time.

 

 

 

1.  No comment.

2.  I am lazy!  I'd rather poke needles in my eyes than listen to hours of podcasts on LDS topics.  I can't provide a source for my recollection that he doesn't like to read, but it is apparent.  It is just my lazy opinion.

3.  Not sure I get you.

4.  Great.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Is that really what they teach? If so, why?

I have no clue.  It makes good, though predictable TV for a young lawyer to go fishing with a witness on the stand and end up getting sandbagged by the result...which leads to a world weary partner/mentor/rival telling him later 'don't you know better than to ask a question you don't know the answer to?' 

Whether Harper Lee started it, it appears in To Kill a Mockingbird:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/993974-never-never-never-on-cross-examination-ask-a-witness-a-question

"Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don't already know the answer to, was a tenet I absorbed with my baby-food.”

This lawyer appears to see it as a wise standard:

http://www.oginski-law.com/faqs/on-cross-examination-at-trial-why-don-t-you-ask-a-question-if-you-don-t-know-the-answer-to-it-.cfm

(apologies for the derail, back to the scheduled program)

Ah, I see Ken has already provided the answer and one from experience, rather than google.  Much more satisfying...

Edited May 30, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 I admit to not having listened to a lot of his podcasts, but I have listened to some   My overall impressions:

1.   It seems he uses the podcast format because he's just plain lazy.  Podcasts in general seem to be media for people who want to be entertained and are not readers.  Generally speaking.  Podcasts don't come with footnotes.  

2.  He does seem to be lazy.  In several of the podcasts with authors, it does not appear that he's read the author's work.  (Larry King did the same thing.)   In fact, I've heard him say he dislikes reading and studying, which may speak to his inability to pass his licensing.  

3.   He often wants to use his interview subjects as a means to criticize the church on matters unrelated to the interviewee.   I was really interested in Brant Gardner's podcast regarding Brant's book(s) about the translation process which seemed to run against the typical FARMS view.   I read the books with interest; they changed my view of the Book of Mormon for the better and more faithful, in my opinion.  But John just wanted to pepper Brant with irrelevant faithlessness nowhere in his book.

4.  John doesn't attempt very much it seems to edit his podcasts down to a decent length.  

That's it.   Some of his stuff is very interesting and I wouldn't get it elsewhere.  But it isn't science, it isn't history and it isn't good journalism. It is entertainment.  So is the Walking Dead, or Keeping Up with The Khardasians.  

Thank you for prefacing your criticisms with the acknowledgement that you haven't listened to much of his work.  

p.s.  It gives me a little chuckle when LDS here on these threads are dismissive and critical of the spoken word (podcasts) considering we all, generally, devote time each week to learning from such.  It's part of our culture and religious practice.  That said, I too have a preference for reading but I find podcasts to be a great option when at the gym or driving. 

Edited May 31, 2017 by rockpond

[juliann]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

It makes sense that you have gotten that impression.  Many people post about him, like you, without being familiar with his work.  It's rather unfair to him to make such conclusions without having spent sufficient time listening to him.  But, thank you for taking my word on it.

Pot meet kettle perhaps?

How many critics are on the board that haven't kept up with scholarly defenses or the cybermountain of data the church is disgorging before they recycle the same old talking points over and over and over and......