John Dehlin's podcast and aftermath

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Apparently because without listening to them you make incorrect conclusions that the podcasts are all about people who have left the church.

But I'm not saying anyone has to listen to them.  If you don't want to listen, don't.  Please, don't!  All I've said (despite how Kenngo may have portrayed my words) is that one should actually listen to Dehlin's work if you are going to criticize it.  Or, at least expect your criticisms to be easily dismissed if they are solely based on podcast titles and second-hand accounts.  

Are you saying that the podcast titles and summaries are misleading? Is this intentional or inadvertent?

Perhaps this should be brought to the editors at MS (could be an opportunity explain and correct lot of misunderstandings).

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you saying that the podcast titles and summaries are misleading? Is this intentional or inadvertent?

Perhaps this should be brought to the editors at MS (could be an opportunity explain and correct lot of misunderstandings).

No, I don't think they are misleading.  I said that you made an incorrect conclusion if you read them and assumed that they are all about people who have left the church.  Looking at the titles, such a conclusion isn't warranted.

Edited June 2, 2017 by rockpond
spelling

[Kenngo1969]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think anyone is making such a claim so you needn't worry and you can dispense with disgusting and immature analogies.

 

[Jeanne]

On 6/1/2017 at 4:07 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

On the one hand, you have excoriated those of us who lack the desire, the patience, and/or the wherewithal to wade through  hundreds of podcasts, each of which is several hours in length, in order to ferret out what kernels of wheat might be present among all of that chaff.  On the other hand, you have conceded that John Dehlin could be a (much?!!) better interviewer.  Still, you refuse to connect the dots between John Dehlin's interviewing skills (or lack thereof, which even you concede), the length of his podcasts, and the lack of desire among those of us who are reticent to listen to him.  Why is the onus on his would-be listeners to consume his product (notwithstanding its flaws, at least some of which even you concede) rather than on him to improve that product (by ... I dunno  ... taking a class in interviewing skills, by being better prepared, by being more succinct, by "cutting to the chase" quicker, and so on) and, thereby, to improve its listenability?  

Surely you have discussed the Book of Mormon with people who haven't read it..isn't that fun??

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Surely you have discussed the Book of Mormon with people who haven't read it..isn't that fun??

I love the implication, by some in this thread, that if Dehlin were just a better interviewer and his podcasts were a bit shorter, that they would listen.  As if THAT is why they don't listen to the podcasts.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I love the implication, by some in this thread, that if Dehlin were just a better interviewer and his podcasts were a bit shorter, that they would listen.  As if THAT is why they don't listen to the podcasts.

I have tried to listen to him when I thought the topic would be interesting or useful to hear.  It has never been the subject, but always the interviewer that led to me turning them off in less than ten minutes.  I honestly have no clue if I would listen longer than say 15 minutes to a few more if he was a better interviewer or if I would be turning all of them off just because I couldn't tolerate the topic of the podcasts, but I do know if I did, it would be only a few since I don't like podcasts.  I think I have listened to maybe three on my own over the years (more eavesdropping on my daughter while driving).

Edited June 2, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have tried to listen to him when I thought the topic would be interesting or useful to hear.  It has never been the subject, but always the interviewer that led to me turning them off in less than ten minutes.  I honestly have no clue if I would listen longer than say 15 minutes to a few more if he was a better interviewer or if I would be turning all of them off just because I couldn't tolerate the topic of the podcasts, but I do know if I did, it would be only a few since I don't like podcasts.  I think I have listened to maybe three on my own over the years (more eavesdropping on my daughter while driving).

I totally understand if the topics have no appeal to people.

Today, for example, I had a lot of driving to do.  I listened to his and Margi Dehlin's recent panel discussion with transgender Mormons.  I'm sure some people have no interest in that.  But for me, it was very educational and enlightening to hear their perspective and experiences (2 of the four are still active in the Church, the other 2 are not).

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I love the implication, by some in this thread, that if Dehlin were just a better interviewer and his podcasts were a bit shorter, that they would listen.  As if THAT is why they don't listen to the podcasts.

You're absolutely right.  That's absolutely not true.  They would have to be much shorter (among other things) to entice me to listen!  

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Surely you have discussed the Book of Mormon with people who haven't read it..isn't that fun??

Of course.  The difference between that and this, however, is that Rock Pond has yet to make a persuasive case why the average, observant, striving, reasonably-devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should listen to Dr. Dehlin's podcasts.  I was at least somewhat more successful in persuading people to read the Book of Mormon.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

One should actually listen to Dehlin's work if you are going to criticize it. Or, at least expect your criticisms to be easily dismissed ...

The gold standard to follow here is Dr Dehlin himself, who is always thoroughly versed in the work of faithful scholars before he criticises it. This is essential because, as Rockpond has pointed out, otherwise we should expect to see his criticisms easily dismissed.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You're absolutely right.  That's absolutely not true.  They would have to be much shorter (among other things) to entice me to listen!  

So how short does one need to be for you to listen to it?  Let me know... I'll see if I can find one for you. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Of course.  The difference between that and this, however, is that Rock Pond has yet to make a persuasive case why the average, observant, striving, reasonably-devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should listen to Dr. Dehlin's podcasts.  I was at least somewhat more successful in persuading people to read the Book of Mormon.

You'll never see me make such a case because I don't believe everyone should listen. 

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The gold standard to follow here is Dr Dehlin himself, who is always thoroughly versed in the work of faithful scholars before he criticises it. This is essential because, as Rockpond has pointed out, otherwise we should expect to see his criticisms easily dismissed.

CFR

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

CFR

Mate, if after hundreds (possibly thousands?) of hours of consuming Dr Dehlin's podcasts, you don't already have sufficient evidence of his careful research and of his thorough familiarity with the work of faithful scholars before he dismisses and/or criticises it, then I'm afraid I can't help you. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, if after hundreds (possibly thousands?) of hours of consuming Dr Dehlin's podcasts, you don't already have sufficient evidence of his careful research and of his thorough familiarity with the work of faithful scholars before he dismisses and/or criticises it, then I'm afraid I can't help you. 

No, I don't have evidence of such and your lack of a response to the CFR is noted.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don't have evidence of such and your lack of a response to the CFR is noted.  

[kllindley]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don't have evidence of such and your lack of a response to the CFR is noted.  

So, you agree that you don't have any evidence that John takes the time to be familiar with his faithful guests. So his criticisms don't really carry any weight, right?

 

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, you agree that you don't have any evidence that John takes the time to be familiar with his faithful guests. So his criticisms don't really carry any weight, right?

 

No.  I don't have any evidence that he dismisses/criticizes the work of faithful scholars without being familiar with their work.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I don't have any evidence that he dismisses/criticizes the work of faithful scholars without being familiar with their work.

I think I just got whiplash. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think I just got whiplash. 

Well, it was your original accusation.