Sacred vs Secular: What Difference Does it Make?

[Robert F. Smith]

Daniel C. Peterson, "What Difference Does It Make?" FairMormon lecture, Aug 5, 2017, online at https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/what-difference-does-it-make .

 

Quote

Many years ago, I received an angry note from a young returned missionary, husband, and father, a graduate student in a distant state, denouncing the Church for lying about its history and denouncing me for my alleged role in defending those lies.

An exchange ensued. I tried to persuade him that he was wrong. He remained hostile, and it was easy to see that he was deeply troubled.

Abruptly, his messages stopped.

After a while, oddly uneasy about the silence and following several unanswered notes inquiring whether he was alright, I called the Institute director at the school where he’d been studying.

My worries were confirmed in the worst possible way. The young man, I was told, had killed himself with a shotgun a month or two before, just about the time our correspondence had ended.

Obviously, I was horrified. I wondered what, if anything, I might have done to help. I read and reread our correspondence, looking for signs that I should have picked up.

Now, I don’t know exactly what went into this young man’s decision to end his life, and to do it in such a horrible way. There may have been—there probably were—many factors involved. But I’m reasonably confident that his loss of faith and his bitter alienation from the Church contributed.

Obviously, most who leave Mormonism don’t take their own lives. Some glide painlessly out. I understand them. A pay increase, an extra day each week, and no meetings! The attractions are obvious.

Others, however, go through periods—whether brief or lifelong—of resentful anger. Important relationships with neighbors, children, parents, spouses, and extended family sometimes rupture in the wake of what we believers call “apostasy.” Often, they suffer from depression. A world charged with eternal meaning, and relationships suffused with cosmic significance, can become an abyss of sheer pointlessness, culminating in oblivion.

These things matter.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Mormonis is more than just a Sunday go to meeting Church. It is a demanding way of life. We all must consider the cost when we pick a religion.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Daniel C. Peterson, "What Difference Does It Make?" FairMormon lecture, Aug 5, 2017, online at https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/what-difference-does-it-make .

While I liked some of Dan's talk, and I'm sure he helps some people with their questions about faith and his apologetic perspectives resonate with many people, this is a great example of where one size does not fit all, and Dan's approach can be not only ineffective, but harmful to some people.  

Now, I'm not blaming Dan at all for this specific tragedy, but I am saying that Dan's approach to faith questions didn't help this man obviously.  Dan is a human with limitations just like us all, and his approach to certain people and their perspectives can be polarizing to some and hurtful.  I personally really don't like his approach, I've read enough of the comments he makes to people on his blog and on facebook to see that he's a very polarizing person and can be quite rude towards those that he disagrees with.  

I would recommend that when believers encounter people going through a faith crisis and people having anger towards the church, that they just listen and validate the emotions of the person and the very real challenge that they are going through.  Don't try and use some arguments to get that person back into the church.  Show love at that moment.  Mourn with them in mourning.  Perhaps at a future time sharing some nuanced perspectives that have been helpful would be appropriate, but don't try to win them back into the fold.  Have trust and faith in the person struggling, show that trust in them and you'll help more than anything.  

Dan might keep some people in the church through his methods, but I personally don't think his approach is the ethically most effective or caring approach, and I think others who've talked about how to help people going through a faith crisis, like a Patrick Mason or Thomas McKonkie have a much more effective perspective on this subject.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

While I liked some of Dan's talk, and I'm sure he helps some people with their questions about faith and his apologetic perspectives resonate with many people, this is a great example of where one size does not fit all, and Dan's approach can be not only ineffective, but harmful to some people.  

Now, I'm not blaming Dan at all for this specific tragedy, but I am saying that Dan's approach to faith questions didn't help this man obviously.  Dan is a human with limitations just like us all, and his approach to certain people and their perspectives can be polarizing to some and hurtful.  I personally really don't like his approach, I've read enough of the comments he makes to people on his blog and on facebook to see that he's a very polarizing person and can be quite rude towards those that he disagrees with.  

I would recommend that when believers encounter people going through a faith crisis and people having anger towards the church, that they just listen and validate the emotions of the person and the very real challenge that they are going through.  Don't try and use some arguments to get that person back into the church.  Show love at that moment.  Mourn with them in mourning.  Perhaps at a future time sharing some nuanced perspectives that have been helpful would be appropriate, but don't try to win them back into the fold.  Have trust and faith in the person struggling, show that trust in them and you'll help more than anything.  

Dan might keep some people in the church through his methods, but I personally don't think his approach is the ethically most effective or caring approach, and I think others who've talked about how to help people going through a faith crisis, like a Patrick Mason or Thomas McKonkie have a much more effective perspective on this subject.  

The problem with that advice might be that it enables and validates false belief.  It was already a lie that Mormon prophets are infallible, or that Mormon history is free from controversy, or that Mormonism is an abject failure from any scientific or practical perspective.  Even the unbeliever Sterling McMurrin saw the fallacy of that reasoning, and frankly admired Mormon culture -- not because it was perfect, but because it had many very positive aspects.

It is surely also true that there will be tragic circumstances for those who are mentally unstable, in any culture or society.  We need to learn to accept the fact that there will be drug abuse, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, mental illness, poverty, lying and cheating in every society -- including among Mormons.  That is part of the larger American culture of which American Mormons are a part.  We can only hope to keep the rate of negative occurrence low by implementing effective treatment and therapy programs, and by commiserating with the anguished (as you suggest).  The blame game will still take place, because that suits the polemic exchangers -- both in defense and on the attack.  Mormon believers who speak truth to falsehood will still be blamed and victimized, but they also need to simply accept their fate.  That is "how the cookie crumbles."

[Glenn101]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is surely also true that there will be tragic circumstances for those who are mentally unstable, in any culture or society.

A faith crisis for such a person, be the faith LDS, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. can be devastating. Often that faith may just be the only thread that one is holding on to for dear life, literally and when that is gone watching "it's a Wonderful Life" does not help. Most people who do not have deeply rooted mental health problems such as chronic depression can transition from a faith based life to agnostic or atheist fairly easily. Some may go quietly, some kicking and screaming, and others venting against their former religion, but they mostly seemingly suffer no major ill effects from the loss of faith.

Depression is not conducive to rational thinking. It is a conduit through which despair and hopelessness is conducted incessantly to the point that all too many give up trying to cope and end their torment. When a person wakes up in the morning and the first thought that crosses his or her mind is that they want to die, they need to find something, some reson to keep on going. Faith can give such an one that hope, that reason. When faith goes, the last morsel of hope also can go, leaving such a person seeing no way out but to take an action that heretofore belief and faith had precluded.

I doubt that Dan's efforts to reason with the young man had any bearing on the decision to end the mortal existence. Dan was trying to show him that there was reason for hope and faith.

Glenn

Edited August 18, 2017 by Glenn101
More thoughts and spelling (cannot even spell my own name)

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

A faith crisis for such a person, be the faith LDS, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. can be devastating. Often that faith may just be the only thread that one is holding on to for dear life, literally and when that is gone watching "it's a Wonderful Life" does not help. Most people who do not have deeply rooted mental health problems such as chronic depression can transition from a faith based life to agnostic or atheist fairly easily. Some may go quietly, some kicking and screaming, and others venting against their former religion, but they mostly seemingly suffer no major ill effects from the loss of faith.

Depression is not conducive to rational thinking. It is a conduit through which despair and hopelessness is conducted incessantly to the point that all too many give up trying to cope and end their torment. When a person wakes up in the morning and the first thought that crosses his or her mind is that they want to die, they need to find something, some reson to keep on going. Faith can give such an one that hope, that reason. When faith goes, the last morsel of hope also can go, leaving such a person seeing no way out but to take an action that heretofore belief and faith had precluded.

I doubt that Dan's efforts to reason with the young man had any bearing on the decision to end the mortal existence. Dan was trying to show him that there was reason for hope and faith.

Glenn

Most of what you say here could describe me. Ever since my FC, I've had suicidal thoughts. But that also could be my Thyroid condition, which led to anxiety, which led to these thoughts. But the FC, seems to be the paramount problem. I've simple got to jump the fence or continue this "Groundhog Day" life, I'm not trying to get sympathy, just telling it like it is. This board is indeed a life saver. 

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem with that advice might be that it enables and validates false belief.  It was already a lie that Mormon prophets are infallible, or that Mormon history is free from controversy, or that Mormonism is an abject failure from any scientific or practical perspective.  Even the unbeliever Sterling McMurrin saw the fallacy of that reasoning, and frankly admired Mormon culture -- not because it was perfect, but because it had many very positive aspects.

It is surely also true that there will be tragic circumstances for those who are mentally unstable, in any culture or society.  We need to learn to accept the fact that there will be drug abuse, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, mental illness, poverty, lying and cheating in every society -- including among Mormons.  That is part of the larger American culture of which American Mormons are a part.  We can only hope to keep the rate of negative occurrence low by implementing effective treatment and therapy programs, and by commiserating with the anguished (as you suggest).  The blame game will still take place, because that suits the polemic exchangers -- both in defense and on the attack.  Mormon believers who speak truth to falsehood will still be blamed and victimized, but they also need to simply accept their fate.  That is "how the cookie crumbles."

I'm not placing a value judgment on religious belief.  False belief is only a concern when those beliefs are used to justify behaviors that are a detriment to society (antisemitism in the current events of the week is one example.)  Belief for Mormonism's truth claims, such as Joseph Smith was a prophet, false or true, is a subjective claim, and both sides are equally valid.  Dan's view that someone believing JS wasn't a prophet might be relevant to Dan, but its irrelevant to the person believing on the other side.  McMurrin's arguments I'm not as familiar with as I'm pretty new to Mormon studies and I haven't read much of his work yet.  I would agree with that statement that there are positive aspects in Mormonism, that is one of the reasons I'm still engaged.  

I try to find a way outside the typical polemic battles and think of things from different angles.  This is a challenge, but I think important.  I'm most concerned with people, not with dogma.  So I try a good measure of validating perspectives especially when I see someone truly struggling and suffering is involved.  

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Most of what you say here could describe me. Ever since my FC, I've had suicidal thoughts. But that also could be my Thyroid condition, which led to anxiety, which led to these thoughts. But the FC, seems to be the paramount problem. I've simple got to jump the fence or continue this "Groundhog Day" life, I'm not trying to get sympathy, just telling it like it is. This board is indeed a life saver. 

Thanks for sharing. I understand where you are coming from. Sharing burdens makes it easier to get through life. It is not sympathy that is offered but concern and love. I am glad that you an feel that.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I try to find a way outside the typical polemic battles and think of things from different angles.  This is a challenge, but I think important.  I'm most concerned with people, not with dogma.  So I try a good measure of validating perspectives especially when I see someone truly struggling and suffering is involved.

And what can a person do if there is struggling and suffering involved but it is not seen?

 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Daniel C. Peterson, "What Difference Does It Make?" FairMormon lecture, Aug 5, 2017, online at https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/what-difference-does-it-make .

If the crux of answering the question posed in the thread title is implied in the idea placed in the very center of this quote, "I wondered what, if anything, I might have done to help," I believe in a mix of secular and sacred approaches. Both secular and sacred needs and resources matter.  We learn to integrate them and time their application when one is better called for than the other. It is good to reflect on that when we assess and express our problems, assess and express others' problems, and when we respond to those who engage our attention whether they are doing the same reflection or not.

Edited August 18, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If the crux of answering the question posed in the thread title is implied in the idea placed in the very center of this quote, "I wondered what, if anything, I might have done to help," I believe in a mix of secular and sacred approaches. Both secular and sacred needs and resources matter.  We learn to integrate them and time their application when one is better called for than the other. It is good to reflect on that when we assess and express our problems, assess and express others' problems, and when we respond to those who engage our attention whether they are doing the same reflection or not.

Sounds good, but I am not sure what it means. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

................................................  False belief is only a concern when those beliefs are used to justify behaviors that are a detriment to society (antisemitism in the current events of the week is one example.)  ...............................................

So-called "antisemitism" is itself an example of false belief, both (1) in the belief itself, as well as (2) in the very definition of the term.  "Antisemitism" is a 19th century European invention which attempted (for a time successfully) to encapsule anti-Jewish beliefs and behavior in a high-falutin racial category.  At the time, the only Semites living in Europe were Jews.  Today an even larger population of Arab Semites lives in Europe, and it turns out that those guilty of most "antisemitic" incidents in Europe are themselves Semites (Arabs).  Hidebound attachment to 19th century terminology makes fools of all those using such terms, which is nearly everyone.

We are all trapped by such common misconceptions.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

While I liked some of Dan's talk, and I'm sure he helps some people with their questions about faith and his apologetic perspectives resonate with many people, this is a great example of where one size does not fit all, and Dan's approach can be not only ineffective, but harmful to some people.  

Now, I'm not blaming Dan at all for this specific tragedy, but I am saying that Dan's approach to faith questions didn't help this man obviously.  Dan is a human with limitations just like us all, and his approach to certain people and their perspectives can be polarizing to some and hurtful.  I personally really don't like his approach, I've read enough of the comments he makes to people on his blog and on facebook to see that he's a very polarizing person and can be quite rude towards those that he disagrees with.  

I would recommend that when believers encounter people going through a faith crisis and people having anger towards the church, that they just listen and validate the emotions of the person and the very real challenge that they are going through.  Don't try and use some arguments to get that person back into the church.  Show love at that moment.  Mourn with them in mourning.  Perhaps at a future time sharing some nuanced perspectives that have been helpful would be appropriate, but don't try to win them back into the fold.  Have trust and faith in the person struggling, show that trust in them and you'll help more than anything.  

Dan might keep some people in the church through his methods, but I personally don't think his approach is the ethically most effective or caring approach, and I think others who've talked about how to help people going through a faith crisis, like a Patrick Mason or Thomas McKonkie have a much more effective perspective on this subject.  

How do we validate anger towards the church if we believe it is unfounded/unfair?  (sincere question)

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

A faith crisis for such a person, be the faith LDS, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. can be devastating. Often that faith may just be the only thread that one is holding on to for dear life, literally and when that is gone watching "it's a Wonderful Life" does not help. Most people who do not have deeply rooted mental health problems such as chronic depression can transition from a faith based life to agnostic or atheist fairly easily. Some may go quietly, some kicking and screaming, and others venting against their former religion, but they mostly seemingly suffer no major ill effects from the loss of faith.

Depression is not conducive to rational thinking. It is a conduit through which despair and hopelessness is conducted incessantly to the point that all too many give up trying to cope and end their torment. When a person wakes up in the morning and the first thought that crosses his or her mind is that they want to die, they need to find something, some reson to keep on going. Faith can give such an one that hope, that reason. When faith goes, the last morsel of hope also can go, leaving such a person seeing no way out but to take an action that heretofore belief and faith had precluded.

I doubt that Dan's efforts to reason with the young man had any bearing on the decision to end the mortal existence. Dan was trying to show him that there was reason for hope and faith.

Glenn

In most such instances, a good therapist is called for.  A professional.  However, there are faith communities in which very little mental illness seems to develop beyond the initial stages.  Why?  Because they have tight communal relations, with everyone looking after one another.  The caring and love is palpable.  This is true, for example, among the Hutterite Brethren.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds good, but I am not sure what it means. 

That first sentence was a bit muddled, wasn't it? The thread title asks an important question. I think the answer is found at the very center of the transcript you quoted (crux / chiasma -- bad riddle, sorry!). Anyway, in my personal experience, whenever "I wondered what, if anything, I might have done to help," I think of both secular and sacred things I could have done in listening, perceiving, preparing and extending help.

The rest of my edited post might now make better sense:

I believe in a mix of secular and sacred approaches. Both secular and sacred needs and resources matter.  We hopefully learn to integrate them and time coordinate their respective applications when one is better called for than the other. It is good to reflect on that  using both when we assess and express our problems, assess and express others' problems, and when we respond to those who engage our attention whether they are doing the same kind of reflection or not.

Using the sad story from the transcript, when a person expresses his frustration at you, consider both the secular and sacred tools you have at your disposal to help. And always seek to help. This takes a bit more time, but that sometimes makes us less reactionary, less vested in ourselves, and thus more useful and hopefully less regretful later on.

Edited August 19, 2017 by CV75
I just keep editing and adding stuff! LOL

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

And what can a person do if there is struggling and suffering involved but it is not seen?

That's a really good question and I definitely don't feel like I'm very qualified to respond and would like you to share your thoughts as well as anyone else.  

I'd like to think by showing respect for and support and love towards others as a starting point, and by looking for opportunities to serve and care for others is a good starting point. 

After that trying to be in tune to inspiration and being mindful of our environment and awareness could help too.  Those are my initial thoughts.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do we validate anger towards the church if we believe it is unfounded/unfair?  (sincere question)

It is a good question and I will say it takes practice and patience and mindfulness has helped me as well.  In the same way I validate family members who spewed hatred towards Obama, or today spew hatred towards Trump(I'm inclined to agree with those though.)  :-)  

At any rate I think we bite our tongues and look for something to validate and empathize with.  Sometimes just saying I'm sorry or that's so hard, or I've felt that way too about something before.  These are statements that really can help.  

I heard a line someone shared in those awkward moments that might help if you're feeling defensive and it's more of a kind boundary setting line, "wow, I see that differently" and if the person asks how, you tell them you'll talk about it at another time.  

Any recommendations from your experience?  I'd love to hear more advice on how people handle these challenging things.  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That's a really good question and I definitely don't feel like I'm very qualified to respond and would like you to share your thoughts as well as anyone else.  

I'd like to think by showing respect for and support and love towards others as a starting point, and by looking for opportunities to serve and care for others is a good starting point. 

After that trying to be in tune to inspiration and being mindful of our environment and awareness could help too.  Those are my initial thoughts.  

This is one of the times where we are both om the same page. I cannot add much to your statement except that we often cannot tell from a person's outward face what he or she is really feeling inside, until maybe it is too late. A friendly smile, a pat on the back, or the like when people know that you really care can make a lot of difference to a person struggling inside. Thanks for your insight.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Most of what you say here could describe me. Ever since my FC, I've had suicidal thoughts. But that also could be my Thyroid condition, which led to anxiety, which led to these thoughts. But the FC, seems to be the paramount problem. I've simple got to jump the fence or continue this "Groundhog Day" life, I'm not trying to get sympathy, just telling it like it is. This board is indeed a life saver. 

Please get medication for your thyroid if you are not. Sounds like you are hyper but hypo can cause those symptoms too. I am hypo and if I am not on my meds I get lethargic and depressed.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Please get medication for your thyroid if you are not. Sounds like you are hyper but hypo can cause those symptoms too. I am hypo and if I am not on my meds I get lethargic and depressed.

Thanks, I'm hypo and on meds, just life I guess. I didn't realize all that can go wrong with the disease. Everything connected and the many causes from it. I'll be fine, thanks for the concern bud!

[thesometimesaint]

Best wishes Tacenda. Keep on your Med's. Which it sounds like you are doing.

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/18/2017 at 0:04 PM, hope_for_things said:

While I liked some of Dan's talk, and I'm sure he helps some people with their questions about faith and his apologetic perspectives resonate with many people, this is a great example of where one size does not fit all, and Dan's approach can be not only ineffective, but harmful to some people.  

Dan's approach to what?  Apologetics in general?  To the specific instance of disaffection and bitterness experienced by the young man he mentioned in his talk?  You don't really have any evidence regarding "Dan's approach" to the latter.

Quote

Now, I'm not blaming Dan at all for this specific tragedy, but I am saying that Dan's approach to faith questions didn't help this man obviously.  Dan is a human with limitations just like us all, and his approach to certain people and their perspectives can be polarizing to some and hurtful.  I personally really don't like his approach, I've read enough of the comments he makes to people on his blog and on facebook to see that he's a very polarizing person and can be quite rude towards those that he disagrees with.  

With due respect, that seems to be the equivalent of, "I'm not blaming Dan, I'm just blaming Dan."  I've never met Dan in real life.  Perhaps you're one up on me on that score.  Perhaps he is more of an acquired taste.  Perhaps you know him better than I do, but, based on my limited interactions with him, I would deny that he's ever set out deliberately to hurt anyone.  And no one can hurt anyone else without the second party's consent.  And I don't accept your assessment that his reaction to anyone is driven by simple disagreement: Motives matter; whether someone has an agenda matters; whether someone is attempting to dialogue in good faith matters; whether someone has resorted to simple character assassination, as so many of his detractors seem prone to do, matters.  All of that and more can play into someone's reaction.  

Quote

I would recommend that when believers encounter people going through a faith crisis and people having anger towards the church, that they just listen and validate the emotions of the person and the very real challenge that they are going through.  Don't try and use some arguments to get that person back into the church.  Show love at that moment.  Mourn with them in mourning.  Perhaps at a future time sharing some nuanced perspectives that have been helpful would be appropriate, but don't try to win them back into the fold.  Have trust and faith in the person struggling, show that trust in them and you'll help more than anything.

That's great advice.  I agree with it.  But, see, here's the thing: From what I know of Dan, bearing in mind the caveats mentioned in my previous paragraph (absent any evidence of ulterior motives and the like on the part of his interlocutors) so would he.  Knowing what I do about the callings he's held in the past in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (one, in particular), I don't see any reason to conclude that he is not wont to take a pastoral approach when he senses that there's a reasonable possibility that such an approach might be effective.  And I know he's had in-real-life interactions with some members of this Board where he's done exactly that.

Quote

Dan might keep some people in the church through his methods, but I personally don't think his approach is the ethically most effective or caring approach, and I think others who've talked about how to help people going through a faith crisis, like a Patrick Mason or Thomas McKonkie have a much more effective perspective on this subject.  

 What "methods" are we talking about?  Again, you know absolutely nothing about the substance of his e-mail exchange with this young man, yet you feel you know enough to question Dan's "ethics," his ability to "care," and so on.  The audience matters; ulterior motives, hidden agendas, and the like, matter; one's willingness to resort to bare character assassination matters.  And the likelihood that any of these things might be in play influences Dan's reaction to critics/skeptics/the disaffected/pick-your-adjective.

[hope_for_things]

On 8/19/2017 at 3:11 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Dan's approach to what?  Apologetics in general?  To the specific instance of disaffection and bitterness experienced by the young man he mentioned in his talk?  You don't really have any evidence regarding "Dan's approach" to the latter.

Dan's interactions with individuals on his blog and social media on religious topics.  

On 8/19/2017 at 3:11 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

ith due respect, that seems to be the equivalent of, "I'm not blaming Dan, I'm just blaming Dan."  I've never met Dan in real life.  Perhaps you're one up on me on that score.  Perhaps he is more of an acquired taste.  Perhaps you know him better than I do, but, based on my limited interactions with him, I would deny that he's ever set out deliberately to hurt anyone.  And no one can hurt anyone else without the second party's consent.  And I don't accept your assessment that his reaction to anyone is driven by simple disagreement: Motives matter; whether someone has an agenda matters; whether someone is attempting to dialogue in good faith matters; whether someone has resorted to simple character assassination, as so many of his detractors seem prone to do, matters.  All of that and more can play into someone's reaction.  

I'm blaming Dan only for what I've seen as rude and disrespectful interactions with those he disagrees with.  I've seen him intentionally stir the pot and then throw insults at those he gets all upset over his pot stirring.  I believe he gets some perverse pleasure out of it.  But I don't know him at all personally.  

On 8/19/2017 at 3:11 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

 What "methods" are we talking about?  Again, you know absolutely nothing about the substance of his e-mail exchange with this young man, yet you feel you know enough to question Dan's "ethics," his ability to "care," and so on.  The audience matters; ulterior motives, hidden agendas, and the like, matter; one's willingness to resort to bare character assassination matters.  And the likelihood that any of these things might be in play influences Dan's reaction to critics/skeptics/the disaffected/pick-your-adjective.

I'm only referring to what I've read of interactions I've seen.  Perhaps there are more complex dynamics with some of the people I've seen him interacting with, their history etc.  I think this is wise advice and important to consider for any behavior we witness from all kinds of people.  We generally only see a small sliver of the whole picture.  I'd give Dan the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to prove himself a more sympathetic character in the future.  I'm only commenting on past behavior I've witnessed, and I'm sure he can change as we all can.  

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

... I'm only referring to what I've read of interactions I've seen.  Perhaps there are more complex dynamics with some of the people I've seen him interacting with, their history etc. ...

I would say that's a virtual certainty, Hope For Things.  I would say that's a virtual certainty.  Personally, I'm exceedingly reluctant to pass judgment in cases where I do not have all of the facts, but ... to each, his own.  

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Dan's interactions with individuals on his blog and social media on religious topics.  

I'm blaming Dan only for what I've seen as rude and disrespectful interactions with those he disagrees with.  I've seen him intentionally stir the pot and then throw insults at those he gets all upset over his pot stirring.  I believe he gets some perverse pleasure out of it.  But I don't know him at all personally.  

I'm only referring to what I've read of interactions I've seen.  Perhaps there are more complex dynamics with some of the people I've seen him interacting with, their history etc.  I think this is wise advice and important to consider for any behavior we witness from all kinds of people.  We generally only see a small sliver of the whole picture.  I'd give Dan the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to prove himself a more sympathetic character in the future.  I'm only commenting on past behavior I've witnessed, and I'm sure he can change as we all can.  

I know Dan personally and have for many years.  He has interacted with people on this board from time to time, and has commented as editor of Interpreter and previously of FARMS Review.  He also has a regular column in the Deseret News.  In none of those places have I witnessed him being rude, disrespectful, or insulting, although he does have a great sense of humor about nonsense.  Perhaps you don't like his sense of humor.  Is that what it really boils down to for you?

Perhaps I am simply ignorant of those horrible occasions when he has been truly rude, disrespectful, and insulting.  Could you please quote and cite two or three examples of his perversity?  That might help clarify what we are talking about here.  Because, thus far, I have no idea what you are really saying, and your claims about him appear to be completely false.