Jump to content

How Bad Is the Exodus?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

With 100 Billion squirreled in the stock market, I think the church will be around for quite a long time. 

If the stock market goes downhill bad enough, that 100 Billion can turn into a lot less in the matter of a day though, right?   

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the stock market goes downhill bad enough, that 100 Billion can turn into a lot less in the matter of a day though, right?   

And it can go back up just as quickly. It’s called unrealized losses or gains. It’s all on paper until you lock in the losses (or gains) by selling the stock. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’ve never heard any but Hamba suggest that Dehlin has a church. Have you?

 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Hamba was being sarcastic to call it a church. I am guessing he simply means Dehlin has created a little community around himself, with some similarities to church culture but also providing the differences if wanted (no longer keeping the WoW for example). Iirc, Dehlin has talked about wanting to fill the community void that is created by leaving the church and has done so with conferences and retreats among other things.

This is reminding me of Reuters, Snopes and other sites that “fact check” the Babylon Bee, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is satire. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
10 hours ago, ttribe said:

John has built a kind of cult of personality amongst a portion of his followers and my opinion is that John REALLY enjoys that attention and adulation. 

Yep, and some who cease providing the adulation and instead raise concerns are booted from the cult and become anti-Dehlinites.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

This is reminding me of Reuters, Snopes and other sites that “fact check” the Babylon Bee, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is satire. 

They were not “seemingly oblivious”. Whoever told you that was lying and you believed it. This is similar to the credulous who believed the Babylon Bee story and those are the people Snopes was addressing.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

No, at least Snopes isn’t. They fact-check it because BB is one of the more common sources of false news out there (unintentionally) and explicitly state it is satire.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-is-real/
 

“Members of both parties failed to recognize that The Babylon Bee is satire, but Republicans were considerably more likely to do so. Of the 23 falsehoods that came from The Bee, eight were confidently believed by at least 15% of Republican respondents. One of the most widely believed falsehoods was based on a series of made-up quotes attributed to Rep. Ilhan Omar. A satirical article that suggested that Sen. Bernie Sanders had criticized the billionaire who paid off Morehouse College graduates’ student debt was another falsehood that Republicans fell for.

Our surveys also featured nine falsehoods that emerged from The Onion. Here, Democrats were more often fooled, though they weren’t quite as credulous. Nonetheless, almost 1 in 8 Democrats was certain that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway had questioned the value of the rule of law.”

“This suggests that clearly labeling satirical content as satire can help social media users navigate a complex and sometimes confusing news environment.

Despite French’s criticism of Snopes for fact-checking The Babylon Bee, he ends his essay by noting that “Snopes can serve a useful purpose. And there’s a space for it to remind readers that satire is satire.”

On this point, we couldn’t agree more.”

Appreciate this so much, some days I question my sanity and especially after spending time with my daughter this past weekend. And she thinks I'm crazy right back. We all need a centralized, trusted place to fact check and I think snopes is pretty neutral. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Appreciate this so much, some days I question my sanity and especially after spending time with my daughter this past weekend. And she thinks I'm crazy right back. We all need a centralized, trusted place to fact check and I think snopes is pretty neutral. 

I am not sure about neutral as the choice of claims to examine seems to me to be heavier right than left, but iirc they not only provide quotes, they provide links as well when possible so you can read or listen to the original and make up your own mind if you want.  And I have seen a number of examples where their explanation is positive for politicians on the right.

Link to comment
On 8/27/2022 at 2:04 PM, bluebell said:

I’ve never heard any but Hamba suggest that Dehlin has a church. Have you?

Not an actual church per say.  But many say he is a leader or "prophet" of some sort.  I just don't see it.  I see him trying to avoid that.

Link to comment
On 8/27/2022 at 2:03 PM, bluebell said:

Teancum seemed to be saying that the only reason members think so badly of Dehlin is because we seem him and his audience as a threat.

Well there may be other reason.  Maybe they think he is ugly, to tall, don't like his voice.  Who knows.  But do you really doubt that the main reason members don't like and seek to disparage Dehlin is because they view him and what he does as a threat?  It is the same reason they gave the boot to Natasha Helfer.

 

Also Hamba in his sarcastic remarks said more about Dehlin that rings true from what I see members beyond "having his own church."   Look I am not a Dehlin apologist.  I listen to some of his podcasts when there is something that interests me.  That is it.  Other disaffected Latter day Saints view him in a variety of ways. Some really like him, some really don't and some are in between.

On 8/27/2022 at 2:03 PM, bluebell said:

You’ve mentioned many times your negative feelings for him. Given that and Teancum’s post on the lack of valid reasons to dislike him, I wondered how he interpreted your views. 

Ummm no I did not make any post on lack of valid reason to dislike him. I understand ttribe's reasons for disliking Dehlin. I may not agree with all of them, I may agree with some. But I did not say anything about lack of reasons to dislike him.

Link to comment
On 8/27/2022 at 3:36 PM, ttribe said:

Ahh, I see. Well, as you might expect, the exmo community is not a monolith of opinions. I know many people who have great appreciation for John's podcast work; Teancum is one of them. I'm not. My path didn't involve him. I said earlier that I think John is a shameless opportunist and I've felt that way for a long time.

Hamba's hyperbole notwithstanding, I think John has built a kind of cult of personality amongst a portion of his followers and my opinion is that John REALLY enjoys that attention and adulation.  At this stage of my life, I am extremely wary of any movement (e.g. religious, political, social) that includes a significant amount of admiration and adoration for a leader. 

My opinion is that he has become far too much of a showman and attention hound over the years, rather than having significant substantive discussion about the topic of being LDS and/or leaving the community. That being said, I'm not operating under the illusion that all will share my opinion.

I do not totally disagree with ttribe's observations and like him am wary of movements such as ttribe describes.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But do you really doubt that the main reason members don't like and seek to disparage Dehlin is because they view him and what he does as a threat?

If by threat you mean how we have seen him hurt others and believe he could hurt more, I would agree with you.

Link to comment
On 8/28/2022 at 2:03 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep, and some who cease providing the adulation and instead raise concerns are booted from the cult and become anti-Dehlinites.

Seems a little odd for a religious person to criticize a group for being too much like a … religion.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If by threat you mean how we have seen him hurt others and believe he could hurt more, I would agree with you.

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.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

If by threat you mean how we have seen him hurt others and believe he could hurt more, I would agree with you.

Calm, what do you think about Fair Mormon hurting testimonies? It may even hurt more when it comes from a faithful site because then people won't scoff it away thinking it's just anti stuff. I'm sure some at Fair may be concerned that the truth actually can hurt.

Link to comment

My own anecdotal experience is that MANY have left or are leaving. I have been quite shocked by some of them. These are NOT fringy, sem-active, non-committed types.

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.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Calm, what do you think about Fair Mormon hurting testimonies? It may even hurt more when it comes from a faithful site because then people won't scoff it away thinking it's just anti stuff. I'm sure some at Fair may be concerned that the truth actually can hurt.

Please bear with me since this is my second post. I attempted to link to an article, but for some reason it was unsuccessful. I now have more queries than I did before after reading fair and a few other church friendly websites. Finding information that isn't seeming to be altered to meet a particular objective is difficult for me to locate because I'm looking for the truth. What the fair websites are attempting to say is beyond my comprehension. Their strategy is deficient, it suggests that the truth is not the most important thing. I must admit that my search for the truth has been challenging. I'm hoping talking to other people on this forum may help me find some of what I'm looking for.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Muhroaneye said:

Please bear with me since this is my second post. I attempted to link to an article, but for some reason it was unsuccessful. I now have more queries than I did before after reading fair and a few other church friendly websites. Finding information that isn't seeming to be altered to meet a particular objective is difficult for me to locate because I'm looking for the truth.

Welcome to the board!

Can you give an example of what specific areas you are researching that you are finding it difficult to find answer to?

When you speaking of looking for "the truth", I think you are going to find it difficult for people to appreciate what you mean.  "Truth" is a philosophical word that means different things to different people. Some people here see truth as objective and universal, other see truth as being relative and approach it in more pragmatic ways - truth is what works.  Can you define in other words what it is exactly you are looking for?

21 minutes ago, Muhroaneye said:

What the fair websites are attempting to say is beyond my comprehension. Their strategy is deficient, it suggests that the truth is not the most important thing. I must admit that my search for the truth has been challenging. I'm hoping talking to other people on this forum may help me find some of what I'm looking for.

When you say that what fair is saying is "beyond my comprehension", I am assuming that you are not being literal, right?  Because if it was beyond your comprehension it would be impossible to conclude that their "strategy is deficient".  Can you show me where they suggest that "truth is not the most important thing"?  Can you be sure that they are not defining truth in a different way than you in this particular case?  

Again, welcome aboard!  In searching for "the truth", do you feel confident that the your foundational understanding of what "truth" even means is sturdy?  Before one begins a search for "truth", perhaps it is best for them to understand first exactly what it is they are looking for.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Muhroaneye said:

Please bear with me since this is my second post. I attempted to link to an article, but for some reason it was unsuccessful. I now have more queries than I did before after reading fair and a few other church friendly websites. Finding information that isn't seeming to be altered to meet a particular objective is difficult for me to locate because I'm looking for the truth. What the fair websites are attempting to say is beyond my comprehension. Their strategy is deficient, it suggests that the truth is not the most important thing. I must admit that my search for the truth has been challenging. I'm hoping talking to other people on this forum may help me find some of what I'm looking for.

You sound like me when I joined this forum in 2012. I had been seeing John Dehlin's videos starting in 2006 and also reading Fair LDS back in the day. I was so confused and I even asked questions and received answers from FAIR that went over my head! This board probably kept me from completely leaving the church, being able to openly speak of my issues and leave it here without hurting those testimonies surrounding me in my very Utah LDS life. I've stuck around and been banned for a few days or sometimes weeks, now I'm on "limited" status but I've luckily not been fully banned, thanks mods. The people on this board know every wart or every issue the church has and they can fully discuss. But we need to follow the rules of the board to keep things civil.

Link to comment
On 8/27/2022 at 11:03 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep, and some who cease providing the adulation and instead raise concerns are booted from the cult and become anti-Dehlinites.

You might have a bit of a blind spot here with this comment.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

My own anecdotal experience is that MANY have left or are leaving. I have been quite shocked by some of them. These are NOT fringy, sem-active, non-committed types.

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.

That is really interesting.  This is not at all a thing in my area.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well there may be other reason.  Maybe they think he is ugly, to tall, don't like his voice.  Who knows.  But do you really doubt that the main reason members don't like and seek to disparage Dehlin is because they view him and what he does as a threat?  It is the same reason they gave the boot to Natasha Helfer.

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.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...