Dehlin v. Kwaku - An Update

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes that was decent of them both.  However, the Kwaku video was frankly despicable. And I do not blame Dehlin for getting the police involved. Dehlin is a public figure and is controversial.  He has had threats, he has had his care keyes, etc. So yea I can see him being nervous and scared. And that fact that when Kwaku made the video it was associated with FAIR, quite frankly is appalling to me, and surprising.

 

I recall when this happened and the follow up apology. I am pretty sure I heard Dehlin talk about it and apologize on a MS podcast, but I could be wrong. But I am not a YouTube user much so I would be surprised if I hears it there.

Wait they Midnight Mormon children just did a video on this to compare it to Wilcox's apology?  Seems like they are digging up old news.  Didn't this issue happen over a year or two ago?  

I agree, Dehlin could have clumped them in with the DezNat group, he is a public figure and who knows who may want to bring him down, or injure him and his family. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes that was decent of them both.  However, the Kwaku video was frankly despicable.

The "however" part becomes regressive, don't you think?  

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And I do not blame Dehlin for getting the police involved. Dehlin is a public figure and is controversial.  He has had threats, he has had his care keyes, etc. So yea I can see him being nervous and scared. And that fact that when Kwaku made the video it was associated with FAIR, quite frankly is appalling to me, and surprising.

"Kwaku made the video?"  Are you sure?

How was the video "associated with FAIR?"

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wait they Midnight Mormon children just did a video on this to compare it to Wilcox's apology? 

They discussed both.

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Seems like they are digging up old news.  Didn't this issue happen over a year or two ago?  

I wonder if Wilcox's apology made it relevant to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I think the fact that this is the second post recently about John Dehlin shows that say what you want, John's popularity is growing.  The test will be time.  Does anyone even really hear much anymore about Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly?  They are still out there but seem to be followed only by their ardent believers.  In 5 years, will we even care about John Dehlin.  John can go after the Church but the modern Church has been around for almost 200 years and isn't going to disappear.  The Church has something people continue to want.  Does John Dehlin have something people will continue to want?  Only time can answer that question. 

I just heard about Snuffer last week.  Apparently he and some others are throwing some kind of conference in Idaho (it's kind of funny that Idaho is usually in the middle of these ultra conservative fringe things).  It's called Rescuing the Restoration, if I remember right.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

 

Often accused unjustly.  And the true believers here just eat it up.

Like ex mormons and the disaffected often due whenever an accusation comes at the church or any of its leaders, even the unjust ones.  I guess it's one of the things that we all still have in common, and likely always will (generally speaking). 

  

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Post Malone is easily recognized, and at least in my area, is loved. On a FB group I belong to "You Know You're From Bountiful If..." they have posts joking around that Post Malone was in certain restaurants or sightings of him. He likes to eat at certain ones, but made up ones too, haha. 

The Sheriff in Morgan has had to remind people to stay off of his property a few times it sounds like.  Though he also said that Malone is very friendly and people are welcome to go up to him if they see him out and about.  Though he sports a very unusual look, he seems like a nice guy.

Edited March 1, 2022 by bluebell

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The "however" part becomes regressive, don't you think?  

No. It was a violent video. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Kwaku made the video?"  Are you sure?

As far as I know. I could be wrong.  But he was associated with it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How was the video "associated with FAIR?"

My understanding was the group that did this was doing it in connection with FAIR.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/24/with-its-gentler-approach/

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They discussed both.

I wonder if Wilcox's apology made it relevant to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As far as I know. I could be wrong.  But he was associated with it.

All he did was retweet the clip, maybe with some approving comment or not.

FairMormon had nothing to do with the clip or the retweeting it and no members supported it.  Kwaku was not a member for FAIR last I heard (been out of the loop for several months), but hired to produce a series of videos for youth along with others based on their work of Saints Unscripted…and iirc, were pretty much given free rein to do so.  The very popular videos were removed from the FAIR Site after it was decided they were too much snark, something we had committed eons ago to removing from our site (many of the earliest articles were humorous in tone according to their author and snarky according to others).

Edited March 1, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

As far as I know. I could be wrong.  But he was associated with it.

 

He retweeted the clip (which was horrible to do because it was such a horrible clip).  But he wasn't involved with it otherwise.  Neither was FAIR.

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He retweeted the clip (which was horrible to do because it was such a horrible clip).  But he wasn't involved with it otherwise.  Neither was FAIR.

Thanks to you and Calm for the clarification.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Any thoughts?

Just that these two grifters were made for each other.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I admit there is a wide variety of reasons why people leave the church. I just tire of so many who think that the numbers who were very devout and leave over the truth claims and historical problems is very small.

We've been over this subject several times before, and I cited my sources.  People like to imagine scenarios which please them, rather than allowing the data and sociological analysis to tell the real story.  Moreover, those who are supposedly pious and devout are often the most shallow and insubstantial people you'll ever meet.  When such people leave their faith (from any religion), I see no reason to feel badly about it:  They never really had authentic faith to begin with.

Hugh Nibley once verbally assaulted a fellow member of the BYU faculty openly, on campus, in view of anybody present  He told a fellow history professor that he had no faith to begin with, humiliating him publicly.  One person who witnessed that event said that his verbal drubbing was well deserved.  Sometime later, that same history professor attended a lecture at BYU by the most important professor of Bible in the world, William F. Albright, the famed archeologist from Johns Hopkins Univ.  Hugh Nibley had spent his first sabbatical at Johns Hopkins and had become a friend of Albright.  Once the lecture was over, questions & answers were entertained.  That humiliated history professor raised his hand and asked what the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls was on Christianity.  Albright responded that the professor should ask Hugh Nibley about that. 

[smac97]

Hadn't seen this before:

Yeesh.  Most of the information included in this video has been discussed on this board, but . . . yeesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That quote from John Dehlin admits that there are a range of reasons why people adopt the LDS faith.  The reverse is also true, even though I get many denials of the fact on this board -- people unwilling to admit that there is a wide variety of reasons why LDS members might leave the faith.

The vast majority of people who leave (I mean activity rates in places like Chile are in the single digits?) leave because the church just doesn’t work for them any more. What’s different over the last couple of decades (post internet) are the number (there have always been some) of long time active faithful members that leave despite the fact that the church *was working for them - that is they have reached the conclusion that the church is false. 
 

These former members are the ones that are most vocal, form communities, post in forums etc. Mormonism was a huge part of their lives - the largest part. It’s inextricably part of their lives going forward due to parents siblings and children that are still active. 
 

How many of these former members are there that fit in this category and are they increasing in number? Only the church could say for sure and they aren’t talking which kind of speaks volumes. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, those who are supposedly pious and devout are often the most shallow and insubstantial people you'll ever meet. When such people leave their faith (from any religion), I see no reason to feel badly about it:  They never really had authentic faith to begin with.

Moreover, those who are supposed pious and devout who stay (and post on Internet forums about shallow and insubstantional people who leave) are often self righteous, self important, narcissists who stay only to inflate their own egos. Present company excluded of course. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We've been over this subject several times before, and I cited my sources. 

Sources on believing LDS people leaving? I do not recall that.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

People like to imagine scenarios which please them, rather than allowing the data and sociological analysis to tell the real story.  Moreover, those who are supposedly pious and devout are often the most shallow and insubstantial people you'll ever meet.  When such people leave their faith (from any religion), I see no reason to feel badly about it:  They never really had authentic faith to begin with.

 

 

I wonder if you would say the same thing about someone who leaves Scientology, The Unification Church or say the Jehovah Witnesses.

But it is total and utter BS.  But I understand it helps you feel more righteous and superior as well as smug about such things. Comments like this are not uncommon from the overly pious.  Such opinions are needed to maintain faith that would crumble otherwise if the face of evidence and gives comfort when cognitive dissonance arises. "They were never really born again, they never had a testimony really, they were offended, the wanted to sin" and on and on.  Faith really is not the penultimate virtue and in fact causes lots of damage at times.  And if keeps people in a false belief systems as well. 

Well you are simply wrong. There are many ex LDS and other ex whatever that were quiet faithful and invested there entire heart, might, mind, strength, time and money to their their religion and were as faithful if not more than you are.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hadn't seen this before:

Yeesh.  Most of the information included in this video has been discussed on this board, but . . . yeesh.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Out of context because it's not fully shown how John responded to NNN, maybe he responded better later in the interview? But yes, for sure he should have acted appalled I wonder if this interview took place before or after the tweeted video. 

Also, John reaching out to Cardon could that be his way to get buddy buddy because he's afraid for his life, as crazy as it sounds?

And then he feels like asking people what route he should take?

I sub'd in 6th grade today for half a day, and honestly I think 6th graders act more mature and loving to their neighbor, than both anti's and apologists like Midnight Mormons. This video is evident of that. 

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Moreover, those who are supposed pious and devout who stay (and post on Internet forums about shallow and insubstantional people who leave) are often self righteous, self important, narcissists who stay only to inflate their own egos. Present company excluded of course. 

You sure about that (what I bolded).

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Out of context because it's not fully shown how John responded to NNN, maybe he responded better later in the interview? But yes, for sure he should have acted appalled I wonder if this interview took place before or after the tweeted video. 

Fair questions.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, John reaching out to Cardon could that be his way to get buddy buddy because he's afraid for his life, as crazy as it sounds?

That sounds . . . unlikely.  If someone has said something to me that I was taking as a threat to my life or physical safety, I would likely not invite him onto my podcast and express admiration for him.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And then he feels like asking people what route he should take?

That part seems . . . odd.  Like he's publicizing melodrama.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I sub'd in 6th grade today for half a day, and honestly I think 6th graders act more mature and loving to their neighbor, than both anti's and apologists like Midnight Mormons. This video is evident of that. 

The video I linked to was done by Kwaku.  And no, I don't care for it.  The earlier "Midnight Mormons" video, however, had some substantive things to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You sure about that (what I bolded).

My post was not to be a serious take on why people stay, merely holding up a mirror for Brother Smith to look in. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Then he pulled that offensively patronising 'I won't tell you what I've discovered because then you would leave the Church too' schtick. 

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, those who are supposedly pious and devout are often the most shallow and insubstantial people you'll ever meet.  When such people leave their faith (from any religion), I see no reason to feel badly about it:  They never really had authentic faith to begin with.

 

I love this. So nice to see both sides of the coin presented so clearly. Both “you’d be forced to leave if you knew what I did” and the “you never had faith to begin with”. I always find it best to assume good faith and let people tell their own stories to the best extent possible. 
 

I think the success of Mormon Stories, in spite of the foibles of its founder, is that it gives a space for former believers and questioning members to tell their stories on their own terms. Members have this opportunity every week in lessons and once a month in front of the whole congregation. 
 

In spite of Dehlin’s failings as a person, people go to listen and they can say - “That describes me too!”  

[Saint Bonaventure]

I don't know much about either of these guys. I saw Kwaku's video the other week and just looked up Dehlin.

Both of them set off my alarm--at least for shenanigans, and probably for actual trouble.

[Derl Sanderson]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The vast majority of people who leave (...) leave because the church just doesn’t work for them any more. What’s different over the last couple of decades (post internet) are the number (there have always been some) of long time active faithful members that leave despite the fact that the church *was working for them - that is they have reached the conclusion that the church is false. 

(...)

How many of these former members are there that fit in this category and are they increasing in number? Only the church could say for sure and they aren’t talking which kind of speaks volumes. 

This conclusion involves too much mind reading, of which neither you nor the Church are capable. There is another aspect of this same logic that I believe is true, but I cannot verify because it also involves thought discernment at which I am particularly bad. It goes like this:

Some or all of the various reasons for leaving the Church that Smac and Robert have enumerated are often masked by individuals behind the "Church-lied-to-me" or other similar facade. This can be the complaint that is voiced when in reality the individual left the Church because Sister Fishbreath pissed him off or the demands of Church membership just became too much of a burden/hindrance to a desired life style.

To be sure, this is a good technique, because if I push back against the argument, I am accused of being judgemental because I in no way can read the mind or know the heart of the offended party and I'm therefore branded as "hating the victim" and am effectively silenced.   

My sense is that this happens fairly often. But of course I can't say for sure.

And neither can the Church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said:

This conclusion involves too much mind reading, of which neither you nor the Church are capable. There is another aspect of this same logic that I believe is true, but I cannot verify because it also involves thought discernment at which I am particularly bad. It goes like this:

Not mind reading. The church can absolutely tell how many returned missionaries that maintained recommends for years have had their names removed and whether that number is going up or down. No need to mind read. 

6 minutes ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Some or all of the various reasons for leaving the Church that Smac and Robert have enumerated are often masked by individuals behind the "Church-lied-to-me" or other similar facade. This can be the complaint that is voiced when in reality the individual left the Church because Sister Fishbreath pissed him off or the demands of Church membership just became too much of a burden/hindrance to a desired life style.

And no doubt many people that hide behind a “testimony” go only because they like the social scene, feel family pressure, like the feeling of being in charge of others, get off on ego trips etc. Right?

 

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not mind reading. The church can absolutely tell how many returned missionaries that maintained recommends for years have had their names removed and whether that number is going up or down. No need to mind read. 

And this ignore people like me and my family. I am married.  Four kid. Was as faithful a member you could find for most of my life. In my early 50s I started having some concerns after spending thousands of hours as not only an active member but a hobby apologist. I tried to make it work for a long time but got to the point I no longer could. It was rather devastating.  Later my wife fell out of activity though I attended with her for a long time as a non believer because it was important to her.  Of my 4 adult children only one marginally believes but does not participate.  One does participate but does not believe and would just as soon not attend if her husband did not want to and he is a marginal believer as well.  One daughter had her name removed.  Do the Church does not have stats on where we are at and why we left. We are still on the rolls. They do know we don't attend or pay tithing or hold a TR.  But hey Robert does not feel bad that we are out. After all we never really had a testimony and reeked of shallow faith anyway.  And I can assure you there are thousands like me/us.  And I know quite a few. 

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And no doubt many people that hide behind a “testimony” go only because they like the social scene, feel family pressure, like the feeling of being in charge of others, get off on ego trips etc. Right?

 

As long as church members approach this like Robert does as well as others the church will continue to lose good solid members.  They may not be able to stop it anyway.  And honestly, it does not harm me one whit.

[ttribe]

I can't imagine a less inspiring comparison than Kwaku v Dehlin. Two sides of the same coin, IMO.