How Bad Is the Exodus?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It is in mine big time.  Young people especially, but I’m talking whole families- it’s been pretty interesting . 

I wonder if you and HJW are from the same area?

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if you and HJW are from the same area?

Good question. I'm in the midwest. No idea where mustard seed is

 

[MustardSeed]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good question. I'm in the midwest. No idea where mustard seed is

 

No, I’m on the coast

[Teancum]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Some probably don't like him for that reason, but most don't like him because he makes a living saying bad things about something that they love, and castigating people that they care about.  It's not rocket science.

Bad things such as??  Or things that are true that may cause them discomfort?   As for his podcasts about problematic historical issues what is bad about it?  I find most of this to be fairly accurate. You can complain about the hyperbole and such but bad things?  Other podcasts may be social issues. For example a lot of time has been spent covering the AP article.  Again you can argue that Dehlin and crew are strident in their opinions and presentation about such things but the fact is there is and have been abuse problems and there is truth in what is being presented.  For most believing Latter-day Saints any critique is bad no matter how true and accurate it is. 

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I mean, think about it.  Think of a person that you love--a child or a wife--and think about how you would feel if someone made a living saying bad things about that person and trying to convince others not to like them either.  

Would you not like that person because you found them to be a threat to you? Or would you mostly not like them because they were horrible to someone you cared about?  

It's pretty basic.  It's human nature not to like someone who's sole goal is to ruin someone/something you love.

I guess the truth hurts at time doesn't it?  And cuts to the center according to the Book of Mormon.  Believing Latter day Saints for the most part don't cope well with any level of criticism of their religion not matter how correct it is nor how it is presented.  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Some probably don't like him for that reason, but most don't like him because he makes a living saying bad things about something that they love, and castigating people that they care about.  It's not rocket science.

I mean, think about it.  Think of a person that you love--a child or a wife--and think about how you would feel if someone made a living saying bad things about that person and trying to convince others not to like them either.  

Would you not like that person because you found them to be a threat to you? Or would you mostly not like them because they were horrible to someone you cared about?  

It's pretty basic.  It's human nature not to like someone who's sole goal is to ruin someone/something you love.

Also I never said I expect believing members to like Dehlin. I am sure they would not for the most part. I just said they disparage him in many ways and at times excessively because they view him as a threat.  And he likely is a threat to many of them and their testimonies.

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Bad things such as??  Or things that are true that may cause them discomfort?   As for his podcasts about problematic historical issues what is bad about it?  I find most of this to be fairly accurate. You can complain about the hyperbole and such but bad things?  Other podcasts may be social issues. For example a lot of time has been spent covering the AP article.  Again you can argue that Dehlin and crew are strident in their opinions and presentation about such things but the fact is there is and have been abuse problems and there is truth in what is being presented.  For most believing Latter-day Saints any critique is bad no matter how true and accurate it is. 

I guess the truth hurts at time doesn't it?  And cuts to the center according to the Book of Mormon.  Believing Latter day Saints for the most part don't cope well with any level of criticism of their religion not matter how correct it is nor how it is presented.  

You kind of ignored what I actually said, and just went with “but he’s right!  Tell me how he’s not right!”

You missed the entire point of my post.  

[Chum]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

One of the regular refrains we are hearing in my area is about "wayward sons and daughters". Sure, there have always been "waywards" but it is talked about regularly in talks and lessons to the extent that it seems it's a talking point. I've seen many of the older generation bear testimony as a means of making sure everyone knows that their waywards are not a reflection on their own faith. In other words, they are not to blame. I've heard multiple people talk about how their garments are clean from the sins of the younger generation as if they have simply washed their hands from the waywardness. It's a lot of Sad Heaven talk. Pretty depressing that so many families feel that their eternal families are lost.

My children are adults and I can honor their adulthood or do something else. Whether to devote their life to the Church is their choice to make.

If they choose not, I can respectfully offer a competing perspective. Past that, I can respect their decision without the least penalty - or I can do something else.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Also I never said I expect believing members to like Dehlin. I am sure they would not for the most part. I just said they disparage him in many ways and at times excessively because they view him as a threat.  And he likely is a threat to many of them and their testimonies.

I get that you see it that way.  I was trying to see if you were able to see it from a different perspective, but it doesn't seem like you are.  

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that you see it that way.  I was trying to see if you were able to see it from a different perspective, but it doesn't seem like you are.  

I completely understand that. I probably felt the same way, too, before. Faith is something very personal, and I try never to get into questions of faith; that is, I don't question people's testimony, spiritual experiences, etc. I will disagree with someone when they make verifiable claims that don't hold up. I get that some people can't distinguish between criticism of religious claims or practices and criticism of themselves. As Scott Lloyd so helpfully quotes Russell McGregor, some people view an "attack" (read: criticism or questioning) on their religion as an attack on themselves as part of that "faith community." The Dehlins of the world, if I were to hazard a guess, see themselves as combating error with truth. Again, I'm no fan of the man, so I don't know what motivates him. 

[Calm]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

Hurt?  Define hurt?  I think the threat is his podcasts expose people to info that may cause them to reexamine their beliefs.  I guess you may view that as hurt.  

No, I actually mean he has intentionally manipulated people without regard to the pain it causes them for his own personal benefit. I am not taking about the fallout from faith crises. His using at times poor quality, slanted approaches to information is another issue.  Unfortunately I can’t share many details of the first because they are not my stories to tell, though we have seen one play out partially on the board where Dehlin caused problems trying to stop a paper about himself without having even read it and it didn’t matter to him that he was disrupting Dan Peterson’s personal life and pretty much threatening his career (later he bragged about getting Dan fired even though he didn’t actually), insisting he respond immediately when Dan’s brother had just died and also there was apparently a threat made that was significant enough it got police involved.**** I see him as having little care for others or what matters to them.  He has arbitrarily kicked out apparently without a thought people who devoted great effort and made deep emotion investments (from how they described it) doing long hours of volunteer moderating work for his community with no reward, not even a discount to a conference or party (one described it as being “thrown out like garbage”).****

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/?do=findComment&comment=1209121323

****https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/john-dehlin-and-the-women-problem/ (used for quotes, not commentary)

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The Dehlins of the world, if I were to hazard a guess, see themselves as combating error with truth. Again, I'm no fan of the man, so I don't know what motivates him. 

Whether or not he personally believes it, I don't think there is any doubt that Dehlin markets himself this way.

(The underlined part is not meant to imply that he's being deceptive.  I just didn't want to speak for him when I have no idea what is going on in his brain.)

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

No, I actually mean he has intentionally manipulated people without regard to the pain it causes them for his own personal benefit. I am not taking about the fallout from faith crises. His using at times poor quality, slanted approaches to information is another issue.  Unfortunately I can’t share many details of the first because they are not my stories to tell, though we have seen one play out on the board where Dehlin caused problems trying to stop a paper about himself without having even read it and it didn’t matter to him that he was disrupting Dan Peterson’s personal life and pretty much threatening his career (later he bragged about getting Dan fired even though he didn’t actually), insisting he respond immediately when Dan’s brother had just died and also there was apparently a threat made that was significant enough it got police involved.**** I see him as having little care for others or what matters to them.  He has arbitrarily kicked out apparently without a thought people who devoted great effort and make deep emotion investments (from how they described it) doing long hours of volunteer moderating work for his community with no reward, not even a discount to a conference or party (one described it as being “thrown out like garbage”.****

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/?do=findComment&comment=1209121323

****https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/john-dehlin-and-the-women-problem/ (used for quotes, not commentary)

 

Hence my feelings toward the man (and I suspect Tim's, as well). What keeps him from being a great resource is ego, IMO.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Whether or not he personally believes it, I don't think there is any doubt that Dehlin markets himself this way.

(The underlined part is not meant to imply that he's being deceptive.  I just didn't want to speak for him when I have no idea what is going on in his brain.)

I don't know what he believes. We humans are good at convincing ourselves we are motivated only by the purest of reasons. I used to have a blog that was, for the most part, dedicated to discussing the pitfalls of navigating a post-faith-crisis life. It certainly wasn't the greatest thing ever, but some people liked it. After a while, though, I realized I had started writing things I knew my readers wanted or expected rather than what I wanted to write. That's pretty much why I stopped writing my blog. I suspect a little of that explains Dehlin, but like you, I don't know.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I completely understand that. I probably felt the same way, too, before. Faith is something very personal, and I try never to get into questions of faith; that is, I don't question people's testimony, spiritual experiences, etc. I will disagree with someone when they make verifiable claims that don't hold up. I get that some people can't distinguish between criticism of religious claims or practices and criticism of themselves. As Scott Lloyd so helpfully quotes Russell McGregor, some people view an "attack" (read: criticism or questioning) on their religion as an attack on themselves as part of that "faith community." The Dehlins of the world, if I were to hazard a guess, see themselves as combating error with truth. Again, I'm no fan of the man, so I don't know what motivates him. 

He's mentioned that he wants the members to know everything there is to know before pledging their lives/money etc. to the church. 

That's his main motivation, or what he says it is. He says he's very much a Mormon though as far as loving his growing up in it and the values and still hasn't drank or done illegal substances.

But this is a very interesting dichotomy for everyone in the religious arena. Growing up with a faith that's been ingrained in you since birth and then discovering new things can be tough. But it may all calm down and the LDS church's history will be taught openly to the youngsters and they may or may not suffer this shock of learning new things. And all will be fine except maybe for the members who have friends, children or relatives that are in the LGBTQx2 crowd. That might be the downfall I'm thinking if we keep hearing general conference talks like Oaks gives. That may set them off, but what do I know, really.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I actually mean he has intentionally manipulated people without regard to the pain it causes them for his own personal benefit. I am not taking about the fallout from faith crises. His using at times poor quality, slanted approaches to information is another issue.  Unfortunately I can’t share many details of the first because they are not my stories to tell, though we have seen one play out partially on the board where Dehlin caused problems trying to stop a paper about himself without having even read it and it didn’t matter to him that he was disrupting Dan Peterson’s personal life and pretty much threatening his career (later he bragged about getting Dan fired even though he didn’t actually), insisting he respond immediately when Dan’s brother had just died and also there was apparently a threat made that was significant enough it got police involved.**** I see him as having little care for others or what matters to them.  He has arbitrarily kicked out apparently without a thought people who devoted great effort and make deep emotion investments (from how they described it) doing long hours of volunteer moderating work for his community with no reward, not even a discount to a conference or party (one described it as being “thrown out like garbage”.****

***https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/?do=findComment&comment=1209121323

****https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/john-dehlin-and-the-women-problem/ (used for quotes, not commentary)

 

I am good friends with someone who knew Dehlin when he was younger and has documentation that shows that Dehlin has not been very honest about some of his history and really does have a huge ego. 

But like you, it's not my info to share.  It definitely colors how I view him though. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know what he believes. We humans are good at convincing ourselves we are motivated only by the purest of reasons. I used to have a blog that was, for the most part, dedicated to discussing the pitfalls of navigating a post-faith-crisis life. It certainly wasn't the greatest thing ever, but some people liked it. After a while, though, I realized I had started writing things I knew my readers wanted or expected rather than what I wanted to write. That's pretty much why I stopped writing my blog. I suspect a little of that explains Dehlin, but like you, I don't know.

I went through something similar after leaving an MLM (this was decades ago).  

I happened upon an anti-that MLM site and made a post outlining my problems with the company.  The owner published it on the website in a different spot and asked me to be a weekly contributor.  I agreed at first but after 2 articles I realized that I had run out of things to say.  I'd either need to start making stuff up or just not do it.  So I had to tell them that I was sorry but had changed my mind.

Thankfully my livelihood and reputation was never dependant on my continuing to write negative things about the company so stopping was easy.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I am good friends with someone who knew Dehlin when he was younger and has documentation that shows that Dehlin has not been very honest about some of his history and really does have a huge ego. 

But like you, it's not my info to share.  It definitely colors how I view him though. 

I personally don't like him too much and have trust issues with him. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

He's mentioned that he wants the members to know everything there is to know before pledging their lives/money etc. to the church. 

That's his main motivation, or what he says it is. He says he's very much a Mormon though as far as loving his growing up in it and the values and still hasn't drank or done illegal substances.

But this is a very interesting dichotomy for everyone in the religious arena. Growing up with a faith that's been ingrained in you since birth and then discovering new things can be tough. But it may all calm down and the LDS church's history will be taught openly to the youngsters and they may or may not suffer this shock of learning new things. And all will be fine except maybe for the members who have friends, children or relatives that are in the LGBTQx2 crowd. That might be the downfall I'm thinking if we keep hearing general conference talks like Oaks gives. That may set them off, but what do I know, really.

 

Oh, I know what he says about himself. Either way, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Mr. Dehlin. I've been pretty open about what I think, and I need not say more. 

As far as the church being more open, I've had a very good object lesson recently in a relative's experience at BYU-Idaho. She had a religion class in which the instructor (a woman, not that it matters) was quite open about some of the "warts" in church history and basically said that students needed to understand that the church's past and its leaders are not perfect but that out of imperfect people great things can arise. She said a lot of the stuff they read (for example, Helen Mar Kimball's life history, as I recall) was troubling but that it was good to have it out in the open. This last semester, she had another class from a male instructor who basically took the opposite approach: there are no problems/imperfections in church history and doctrine, and it's all just anti-Mormon lies. The second class got her and her husband to do their own research because they figured there had to be something there if the guy was so defensive (there was). They've left the church, and she transferred to UVU. Back when I first got involved in internet discussions of Mormonism (back around 1995 or so), it was this latter approach of denial and attack that seemed to be most prevalent. Obviously, I don't think it's a productive way to deal with the problematic. But some people have not learned.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I went through something similar after leaving an MLM (this was decades ago).  

I happened upon an anti-that MLM site and made a post outlining my problems with the company.  The owner published it on the website in a different spot and asked me to be a weekly contributor.  I agreed at first but after 2 articles I realized that I had run out of things to say.  I'd either need to start making stuff up or just not do it.  So I had to tell them that I was sorry but had changed my mind.

Thankfully my livelihood and reputation was never dependant on my continuing to write negative things about the company so stopping was easy.

To be clear, I never made anything up, but my choice of subjects was, as you said, dependent on coming up with stuff that fit a certain point of view. I'm glad I realized that before it became a habit. And, also, I should just mention I never made any money from my blog, and my reputation, such as it is, was pretty much destroyed long before I started writing. 🤣

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I am good friends with someone who knew Dehlin when he was younger and has documentation that shows that Dehlin has not been very honest about some of his history and really does have a huge ego. 

But like you, it's not my info to share.  It definitely colors how I view him though. 

I don't know anything about his past, but yes, his ego does shine through, IMO.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hence my feelings toward the man (and I suspect Tim's, as well). What keeps him from being a great resource is ego, IMO.

The motivation behind his choices does seem to be ego, either stroking it or defending it when those around him are less than loyal in his view.  But for me there is something else there that is twisted in how he manipulates others. I know this is unfair to make an accusation and not share any evidence, but I feel the need to explain the intensity of my dislike of the man is not because of the stuff I have posted, but others I cannot share.  I am not going to claim ‘if you knew what I know, you would despise him too’ because you might interpret his behavior and the circumstances differently than I do, but I think you would likely get why I hold the position I do.  I do not expect and in fact hope no one changes their mind about him just because of my comments, that would be unfair to them and to Dehlin….though I hope anyone who gets involved with him is extra cautious and protects themselves where possible.  

There are very few people I truly dislike in the world.  He is one.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

The motivation behind his choices does seem to be ego, either stroking it or defending it when those around him are less than loyal in his view.  But for me there is something else there that is twisted in how he manipulates others. I know this is unfair to make an accusation and not share any evidence, but I feel the need to explain the intensity of my dislike of the man is not because of the stuff I have posted, but others I cannot share.  I am not going to claim ‘if you knew what I know, you would despise him too’ because you might interpret his behavior and the circumstances differently than I do, but I think you would likely get why I hold the position I do.  I do not expect and in fact hope no one changes their mind about him just because of my comments, that would be unfair to them and to Dehlin….though I hope anyone who gets involved with him is extra cautious and protects themselves where possible.  

There are very few people I truly dislike in the world.  He is one.

No argument from me. He's certainly screwed over enough people I know, so I have not followed him much at all. Maybe that's the only reason I don't necessarily despise him. But I do think he's something that rhymes with glass pole. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I am good friends with someone who knew Dehlin when he was younger and has documentation that shows that Dehlin has not been very honest about some of his history and really does have a huge ego. 

That is a diplomatic and mild way of describing it, imo.  But I should stop now since I can’t add more.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is a diplomatic and mild way of describing it, imo.  But I should stop now since I can’t add more.

 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, I know what he says about himself. Either way, I'm not trying to pass judgment on Mr. Dehlin. I've been pretty open about what I think, and I need not say more. 

As far as the church being more open, I've had a very good object lesson recently in a relative's experience at BYU-Idaho. She had a religion class in which the instructor (a woman, not that it matters) was quite open about some of the "warts" in church history and basically said that students needed to understand that the church's past and its leaders are not perfect but that out of imperfect people great things can arise. She said a lot of the stuff they read (for example, Helen Mar Kimball's life history, as I recall) was troubling but that it was good to have it out in the open. This last semester, she had another class from a male instructor who basically took the opposite approach: there are no problems/imperfections in church history and doctrine, and it's all just anti-Mormon lies. The second class got her and her husband to do their own research because they figured there had to be something there if the guy was so defensive (there was). They've left the church, and she transferred to UVU. Back when I first got involved in internet discussions of Mormonism (back around 1995 or so), it was this latter approach of denial and attack that seemed to be most prevalent. Obviously, I don't think it's a productive way to deal with the problematic. But some people have not learned.

So the class where she was exposed to and reading the "bad" stuff didn't cause her any spiritual heartburn?