John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

We all say and do stupid things that we regret at time.  The blacks and Kwaku comment seems to fall into such a category.  I recall early in my career making what I thought was on funny witty statement and realized as I said that it would come out as sexist and disparaging of women. And it was in the workplace.  I immediately wanted to stuff the words back in my mouth and have it be that I never said them.  But I couldn't so I had to apologize.  Profusely.

Yeah, well this was to an audience from a seasoned podcaster. Should have known better doesn't begin to cover what he displayed so blatantly. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

LGBTQ folks are reacting quite strongly to Equality Utah's audacious daring to speak for them.  It ain't that cohesive a community.  There is far more resistance to any sort of "lets march in lockstep" efforts than you'll ever see in the CoJCoLDS.

I would see this as a nobrainer.  The vast majority of people who see themselves as members of the Church are officially members of the Church, voluntarily mostly, which means most accept leadership’s position of authority and calling to speak for the Church.  Just because someone identifies as LGBT doesn’t mean they see themselves as part of the community and really doesn’t mean they see themselves as accepting any authority from anyone they have not volunteered to submit themselves to.  It would be similar to either the Democratic or Republican Party claiming they speak on behalf of all Americans or at least all liberals for Dems and all conservatives for Reps.

It is not as much about a cohesive community, I am guessing, though from what I see there is lots of variety.  I am guessing the response is more about someone assuming authority rather than being given it.  But I could be projecting due to what royally ticks me off at times, lol.

Edited February 8, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh puhlease.  He is well known for his misogynistic tendencies (women who worked with him are the sources). But I understand that it is common to downplay such things. He had to apologize for a bad blooper involving comments about Blacks, too.  And none of this was stuff was so minor that could be discounted without displaying bigotry yourself. 

Huh?  I displayed bigotry?  How so?  

Edited February 8, 2024 by Teancum

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yeah, well this was to an audience from a seasoned podcaster. Should have known better doesn't begin to cover what he displayed so blatantly. 

Okie dokie.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yeah, well this was to an audience from a seasoned podcaster. Should have known better doesn't begin to cover what he displayed so blatantly. 

Considering how it can be edited and there are at least hours, if not days, after an interview is done for it to get posted, he had plenty of time to have second thoughts and get it deleted before publishing because he was sensible enough to recognize himself it was an issue.  Apparently he either didn’t or didn’t care enough, maybe thinking his audience would be okay with it.  Also as a seasoned podcaster he would have to know that putting his apology on a separate, low traffic YouTube channel way lowered the probability of it being seen, but still allowed him to point to it as evidence he had done his part.

It is not unusual for him to speak off the cuff and delete it later.  It feels very wanting to have his cake and eat it too (being able to be careless in speech and still not be held accountable for it because it no longer exists or he apologizes…the whole it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

immediately wanted to stuff the words back in my mouth and have it be that I never said them.  But I couldn't so I had to apologize.  Profusely.

And you had the right response.  
 

OTOH, Dehlin didn’t react until others called him on it and his apology wasn’t publicized much.  The account has 147 subscribers and it has 7.7k views from 2 years ago vs the latest MS podcast have 47k views in 2 days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U7Scnb4wW

I don’t see many similarities between your responses.

 

Edited February 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

On 2/6/2024 at 8:24 PM, smac97 said:

Hadn't heard about this.  Could you elaborate?

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/john-dehlin-and-the-art-of-interpersonal-terrorism/

Not calling employers, but affecting a business reputation
 

Quote

Apparently, President King was receiving harassment from various corners on a daily-or-more basis. John indicates that he has not at any time disseminated the Stake President’s information, and appropriately expresses his condolences. The Stake President then talks about how rather than become bitter about the abuse he’s receiving from John’s followers he has used it as an opportunity to deeply consider the matter that is before them. If anything that is a lovely example of all things turning to good for those who love and serve God, and the way that love can transform even hateful actions into something productive….

. Several commenters have mentioned to me that an early version of the press release post on Mormon Stories, posted January 15, 2015 contained a link to the Stake President’s healthgrades account, which is a service that allows people to anonymously rate physicians. I found this puzzling, and perhaps even apocryphal, but looking where they pointed it me, it was also, regrettably, absolutely true. If you want to see just go to the link in the middle of this paragraph and exam the embedded link in Bryan King’s name. I would ask you to please not attempt to manipulate it in any way. Opposing lies do not counterbalance each other, and rating a business that you have not patronized is dishonest regardless of which way you are voting.

Let’s talk about why this is a problem. We have a mental health professional, John Dehlin, who is providing his followers with the information, linked to Bryan King’s name, where many of them would click even before they knew where they were going out of sheer curiosity, and would then find themselves confronted with an opportunity to retaliate for any bad feelings they may have toward the Church, the concept of Church discipline, their feelings of frustration with a faith crisis, or whatever else might be on their minds. Dehlin knows that many of them have been harassing his Stake President anyway—Dehlin has already expressed his condolences for it—so making his information available is sufficient to ensure that they will, based on nothing more than the provision of the link, damage his Stake President’s reputation, not as a counselor or theologian or anything related to the disciplinary action, but as a medical professional. It appears that Dehlin is using the information that he has learned from his interaction with his Stake President (that King is being harassed already and that his family is suffering with him) to deliberately hurt him in a way to which he knows King is vulnerable.

 

 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Considering how it can be edited and there are at least hours, if not days, after an interview is done for it to get posted, he had plenty of time to have second thoughts and get it deleted before publishing because he was sensible enough to recognize himself it was an issue.  Apparently he either didn’t or didn’t care enough, maybe thinking his audience would be okay with it.  Also as a seasoned podcaster he would have to know that putting his apology on a separate, low traffic YouTube channel way lowered the probability of it being seen, but still allowed him to point to it as evidence he had done his part.

It is not unusual for him to speak off the cuff and delete it later.  It feels very wanting to have his cake and eat it too (being able to be careless in speech and still not be held accountable for it because it no longer exists or he apologizes…the whole it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission).

All his podcasts are live.  The one in question is a joint effort with  John, RFM, Nill Reel and Rebecca Biblioteca(Spelling?).  Again the podcast was live.  So no editing was available.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All his podcasts are live.  The one in question is a joint effort with  John, RFM, Nill Reel and Rebecca Biblioteca(Spelling?).  Again the podcast was live.  So no editing was available.

Good to know.   Though an apology could have been added to it or posted immediately after it.

That also does not explain the odd choice of where to post the apology.

Edited February 9, 2024 by Calm

[Daniel2]

On 2/8/2024 at 4:53 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok.  So MS did some 'investigative journalism" and published a bunch of stuff about the lives of two people?  I guess my thoughts: 

- If these people have put themselves and their lives in the public spotlight, then too bad for them and Equality Utah can just shut up.  Go read up on the history of celebrities mad at against paparazzi to see where society or the law draw the line.
- If these folks have done little to none of that, and are just two folks going about their private lives, then boo on MS and yay on Equality Utah.

I'd say these are my thoughts regardless of who is doing the telling, who the associated communities are, what cultural aspects or institutional practices are being looked at, or what anyone's agenda is.   Public figures are fair game. People get to enjoy their private lives.  No matter the politics or persuasions or personalities or proclivities, if you put 'em in a window, people are gonna window shop from public spaces and blog about what they found rummaging through your dumpster.  If you keep 'em in a box in your house, people are jerks if they hang out with a camera to catch you carrying the box to your car or whatever.  

Go film and discuss Mitt Romney and Harry Reid all you want - leave my uncle in Vernal alone.   Go do an expose on the owner of whatever dog is trending on TikTok, but leave my dog alone, even if you see us in the park.  Go point to the personal lives of Hollywood starlets as proof of the moral decay of the movie industry, leave my Bishop alone - he's a software developer for pete's sake.  

By LDS standards and as far as being a gay Mormon, Charlie Bird has built a fairly significant public persona and brand, including:

• publishing his first book on the subject with LDS-owned Deseret Book, Without the Mask: Coming Out and Coming Into God's Light,
• a soon-to-be-released new book called Expanding the Borders of Zion,
• guest appearances in pro-LDS podcasts (here and here, still available via Deseret Book),
• self-identifying himself on social media (per his Facebook account) as: "Former Cosmo Couger, LGBTQ Advocate, Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (including a backdrop photo of him being featured on a Utah-based news program),
• co-headlining his own online podcast series, Questions From the Closet (as recently as 14 February, 2024)

As such, I imagine he has experienced and continues to expect to experience some degree of attention/notoriety/fame/infamy. I support he and his husband's activism in all its forms, whether public or in their own personal circumstances, especially since it comes from a place of quasi-celebrity privilege, and therefore a certain degree of protection from consequences that other, less-known members routinely face. 

That said, I find Equality Utah/Wyoming/Arizona's pearl clutching over 'invasions of his privacy' by some taking Mr. Bird at his word and choosing to attend Charlie's ward (in a private space where the buildings literally say "public welcome") to witness for themselves if/how he's "expanding the borders of Zion" to be a bit over the top--he's literally built a brand on doing so.  He's continued to be public about partnering with The Church to some degree (it's not entirely clear how that dynamic works to me, though he's still apparently in enough good grace to remain not only an active, calling-carrying member, but somewhat promoted via Deseret Book), so it's easy to see that some are curious about how that's going for his ward, his leaders, and himself--again, in a public place (if any were stalking them in their home or other personal spaces, that would be an entirely different matter, IMO).

I see the actions of some in this thread as taking opportunities to celebrate divergent 'factions' of the LGBT movement be critical of one another--but don't believe anyone (however mildly) gloating of such necessarily share the goals of Mormon Stories, Equality Utah, and Mr. Bird, himself, all of which promote more inclusive and safe spaces for LGBT individuals within Mormonism, it's Faith, beliefs, and culture, as well as equal civil liberties and protections.

Edited February 21, 2024 by Daniel2

[Stargazer]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:04 AM, Calm said:

Wait….do you mean repentance for a particular sin is never finished (we are still guilty of that sin and not just guilty because we end up committing more sins we now need to repent of) until final judgement (it’s on our ledger until then)  so the sacrament acts like a booster to keep us going until then or do you mean the sacrament is needed to resolve sins and get full forgiveness because one can truly fully repent now (the sacrament erases the sin out of the ledger once repented even if other sins get added so we are still in the red) (normally I don’t like debt/money analogies for the Atonement, but my brain is fried today)

Sorry to not get around to this until 2 weeks have passed. I've been busy.

Like you, I dislike money analogies when it comes to sin, repentance, and forgiveness. Here is how I look at it:

First of all, note that I am not setting forth doctrine, but my understanding of how things are. In other words, YMMV. I feel that there is only one sin: disobedience. And though it has many components, it is all a compound in one. I.e. disobedience. I feel the only difference between particular component sins is in each one's difficulty of repentance, which is also related to each one's impact upon ourselves and others. But in effect, if you committed only one sin in your entire life, you would be as far from God as the person who committed a million sins. And upon repentance, Christ's Atonement would cover your one sin just as easily as it would cover the million-sin person. But if you rejected Christ, the one-sin person must atone for his own disobedience in the same degree as the million-sin person. 

So, let's say that last week you shoplifted a candy bar from your local convenience store. And then upon feeling godly sorrow for your crime, you went back to the store, gave the clerk what the candy would have cost you if you had bought it honestly, resolved never to steal anything ever again, and then on Sunday you partook of the Sacrament. Are you now forgiven? One might feel so, and I have no doubt that the Spirit will tell you that you are "at one" with God at some point. But are you truly forgiven or only provisionally forgiven? I feel that it is the latter only, until the test is finally done -- which will not occur until the veil has been lifted from you, and you receive the Kingdom that you have prepared yourself for (Terrestrial, or Celestial).

This provisional forgiveness is a great blessing, of course, but simply because you haven't finished life's tests, and even if you don't steal another thing for the rest of your life, you will doubtless sin in some other degree between now and finally then. And you will need repentance and the Sacrament until things are finally settled.

In case you're interested in my other ruminations on Christology, you can read them here:

• The Mathematics of the Atonement of Jesus Christ

• The Roles of Justice, Sacrifice and Mercy in the Atonement of Christ

• Why Christ had to be the Son of God

AND, I see that I have been indulging in my tendency to lecture. Mea culpa, and please forgive my intemperance! This subject has caused me a lot of thought over the years.

[Stargazer]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:23 AM, MustardSeed said:

It all boils down to what it means to be unworthy.  My experiences have me distrusting men in powers’ opinions and overreach-, 

MS, I really hesitated to answer this, because it's going to sound as if I were setting myself up as a kind of authority, when that's not my intent. Please don't take this as me trying to blow my own horn or putting myself forward in any way. It just seemed like something that should be said. My apologies in advance if you feel I'm trying to correct you. That's not what I'm trying to do.

One should understand that the forbidding is not a penalty or punishment, but something along the lines of safeguarding or protecting. That's how I feel it should be understood, anyway, because if you do partake unworthily, that is damaging to your soul, unless the scripture is lying.

Some 40 years ago I had the burden of serving as a branch president. On a few occasions, members of my branch came to me to confess their having broken with a covenant or commandment. In a couple of cases it seemed prudent to ask them not to partake of the sacrament for a time, until the matter had been resolved.  I counseled with them as they progressed towards repentance, and in each case once we both felt that they had progressed sufficiently, they were then cleared to partake of the sacrament once again. These occasions were actually very uplifting, as they had reached a sense of rapprochement with the Lord, and partaking again of the sacrament constituted a culmination or a kind of joyous reunion. 

As for "overreach," well, it will happen. By now I have pretty much memorized D&C 121:39-40

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Some men (and women are not immune) never get the message. Most, I think, do learn to govern their tendency to unrighteous dominion. 

But one has to remember that even those not in authority can exercise unrighteous dominion, in that they disparage righteous godly authority, and insist upon going their own way. Have I ever felt that a church authority was going "too far" in counseling me?  Yes, indeed! In two cases, and I still feel they were not acting completely properly (in neither case was the sacrament involved). However, I bridled my indignation and quietly submitted. And I ended up feeling blessed as a result.

On 2/8/2024 at 12:23 AM, MustardSeed said:

I’m grateful that the sacrament is withheld less often than it was 10 years ago, but I’d really could have used the more generous approach in my own family then. 

The withholding of the sacrament is only supposed to be done in the circumstance of resolving a transgression that rises to the level requiring confession to a church authority. And it should be understood to be a palliative and not a punishment.

More frequently it would be an individual voluntary decision based on the recognition of being not quite right with the Lord (and not rising to the level requiring confession to a church authority). It's happened more than once to me that I realized that my behavior in certain cases was not worthy of a Latter-day Saint, and I felt it best to wait on partaking of the sacrament until I felt I had corrected myself sufficiently. And then, upon resolving the matter, it made rejoining by way of partaking of the sacrament a precious event.

[Stargazer]

On 2/8/2024 at 3:02 PM, Tacenda said:

I don't have a leg to stand on the subject, but I'd always remembered taking it to renew our covenants, wouldn't that work with someone trying to reset their ways?

Absolutely! I've done that reset, myself, on a few occasions. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Maybe the Church is moving in a direction I might be wary of- maybe it's not. But I'm not about to be a Latter-day Uzzah. I will follow the "Mormon Creed" I learned about years ago:

"Mind You Own Business"

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe the Church is moving in a direction I might be wary of- maybe it's not. But I'm not about to be a Latter-day Uzzah. I will follow the "Mormon Creed" I learned about years ago:

"Mind You Own Business"

Do you mind elaborating, I'm not computing this very well, lol. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind elaborating, I'm not computing this very well, lol. 

😃 Sure...

It's not my job to worry about how the Church of it's leaders are handling various contemporary moral issues. My job is to stay Temple worthy, honor the covenants I have made, and redeem my ancestors. The Lord will correct things that need correctin'

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

😃 Sure...

It's not my job to worry about how the Church of it's leaders are handling various contemporary moral issues. My job is to stay Temple worthy, honor the covenants I have made, and redeem my ancestors. The Lord will correct things that need correctin'

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

Thank you and welcome, I've enjoyed your posts so far!

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you and welcome, I've enjoyed your posts so far!

Thanks 👍

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe the Church is moving in a direction I might be wary of- maybe it's not. But I'm not about to be a Latter-day Uzzah. I will follow the "Mormon Creed" I learned about years ago:

"Mind You Own Business"

How does that fuel my narcissism?

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

😃 Sure...

It's not my job to worry about how the Church of it's leaders are handling various contemporary moral issues. My job is to stay Temple worthy, honor the covenants I have made, and redeem my ancestors. The Lord will correct things that need correctin'

ZealouslyStriving (Mosiah 27:35)

I forgot to ask, what is a Latter-day Uzzah? Also, I hope to hear your story one day. Did you go through a phase or a dark night of the soul experience like some of us in the church with unbelief? Hopefully I'm not being blunt by asking. And just tell me to shut up and mind my own business too. You did bold and underline "Mind you own business". Is that what you were hinting to?

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I forgot to ask, what is a Latter-day Uzzah? Also, I hope to hear your story one day. Did you go through a phase or a dark night of the soul experience like some of us in the church with unbelief? Hopefully I'm not being blunt by asking. And just tell me to shut up and mind my own business too. You did bold and underline "Mind you own business". Is that what you were hinting to?

Uzzah was our brother who got zapped anciently for trying to keep the ark from tumbling off the cart.

I was just saying that how other people are living their personal lives and how church leaders are dealing with it is none of my business. I'm going to focus on my own issues.

[Doctor Steuss]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind elaborating, I'm not computing this very well, lol. 

As an aside, this particular "Mormon Creed" was extremely popular in the mid/late 1800s.  William Smith was its biggest proponent, and published it as part of a notice in an issue of the Wasp.  The Creed was also published a few times in the Millennial Star, and the Deseret News, and I think Pratt published it in his Prophetic Almanac too.  It made its way into a few Mormon folk songs too.  Brigham Young's quotes are probably the most famous and well known as far as prophetic endorsement of the Creed, but Taylor espoused it quite a bit too.

Let us observe the "Mormon Creed" - let everyone mind their own business. Everyone has weeds enough in his own garden to attend to without attending to the weeds in his neighbor's garden, for while you are attending to the weeds of your neighbor, those in your own will grow very thick and tall and will finally spoil the good seed. ~BY

[LoudmouthMormon]

Oh wow - there's a blast from the past!   I have vague memories of endless LDS apologetic battles 10+ years ago involving you, although I can't for the life of me remember if we were allies or enemies.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:34 PM, Doctor Steuss said:

As an aside, this particular "Mormon Creed" was extremely popular in the mid/late 1800s.  William Smith was its biggest proponent, and published it as part of a notice in an issue of the Wasp.  The Creed was also published a few times in the Millennial Star, and the Deseret News, and I think Pratt published it in his Prophetic Almanac too.  It made its way into a few Mormon folk songs too.  Brigham Young's quotes are probably the most famous and well known as far as prophetic endorsement of the Creed, but Taylor espoused it quite a bit too.

Let us observe the "Mormon Creed" - let everyone mind their own business. Everyone has weeds enough in his own garden to attend to without attending to the weeds in his neighbor's garden, for while you are attending to the weeds of your neighbor, those in your own will grow very thick and tall and will finally spoil the good seed. ~BY

 

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh wow - there's a blast from the past!   I have vague memories of endless LDS apologetic battles 10+ years ago involving you, although I can't for the life of me remember if we were allies or enemies.

 

 

Allies, I hope!  If not, perhaps this passage from Joseph Smith's letter to W.W. Phelps is apt: "Come on, Dear Brother, since the war is past.  For friends at first are friends, again, at last." 

[Doctor Steuss]

Lol.  Thank you.  I was an amateur apologist of sorts back in them there days.  Structurecop, myself, and I think Bluebell used to do "sorties" to anti-Mormon boards (and sometimes bring a bogey back with us).  I'm afraid nowadays, my cognitive abilities are largely gone (yay medications), and I'm no longer a believer (agnostic on some days, on others a hopeful pantheistic deist of sorts).  Also much more curmudgeonly... and I now smell slightly like bologna and wet dog for unknown reasons.  Although my mom assures me that to her, I stinketh not.

I don't think I ever had any enemies (on either side of the isle).  At least I hope I didn't.  If I did, I apologize, as it was never my intent.

Edited February 29, 2024 by Doctor Steuss