- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yeah, I personally tend to give a pass on examples like that. My intent is to give people the benefit of the doubt. In these examples, I imagine that Elder Oaks might have peripherally known that conversion therapy was happening but not really deep into the details. The psychology department may have any number of experiments happening at any given time. They certainly do not require the personal approval or oversight of the university president. So maybe both can be true. That he had heard about it but was not really involved.
Hiding the true church history IMO is a bit of a different issue. I think that there is a mountain of evidence that the church actively discouraged non-faith promoting narratives. I point to the treatment of authors Juanita Brooks, Linda King Newell, and Valeen Tippetts Avery. These were faithful Latter Day Saints that wrote the truth (as much as they could with the resources available to them) and faced consequences. But even here, if Elder Ballard says that the church didn’t hide the true history, then I assume that he means that church officials have promoted the narrative that they firmly believe while discouraging competing and revisionist versions. It is not as simple as hiding a body for example. History is a tapestry. Even trained historians will highlight those parts that they feel are most important/relevant and minimize other elements. History is, of necessity, a condensed version of the past.
I assume that Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard would be reluctant to parse their statements and parse exactly what they meant in each setting because there is a high probability that anything they say could be used against them and against the church.
In short, I see them both operating in their capacity as members of a board of directors for a multi-billion dollar and multi-national corporation. I wouldn’t exactly call them dishonest. I would however agree 100% that they are not very transparent.
P.S. Going back to the Lawyer example of my previous post. Are defense lawyers dishonest? Is it an unacceptable profession for people of faith and integrity? There does seem to be some wiggle room between being dishonest and telling the full and unvarnished truth in all situations.
I think I understand what you’re saying. I agree what saying. I agree that there’s some wiggle room with being honest and being open, especially when it comes to defense lawyers and people that do undercover work for the government, the military, and law enforcement, even though being deep undercover for long periods can be incredibly stressful for those people involved. I apologize if I seemed like I trying to say that honesty means that you’re always an open book to all people at all times. I really wasn’t trying to say that at all. I also agree that history is a condensed version of past events. You’re right. Nobody who writes or tells history will want or will be able to write or tell every single little detail. I’ve tried when I’ve written in my journal before. Hahah. It’s not even possible.
I just believe the telling of certain events could have been handled a little bit better, but, then again, as the saying goes, it is what it is.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:
Oaks claimed he didn’t about conversion therapy going on at BYU when he was the school’s president, but ends up saying later on that he knew about it. Which is it, President Oaks?If I recall correctly, Oaks made the claim that conversion therapy at BYU was discontinued before he became president of BYU and that it didn’t happen under his term. People researched it and determined the statement was false. A grad student did some research on conversion therapy while Oaks was president.
That’s where my knowledge ends. Maybe Oaks was unaware of the grad student’s research. Maybe he signed off on it and forgot. Maybe he did know and did remember but he lied about it. It’s hard for me to say without knowing more facts.
I don’t know of any statement by Oaks where he recanted but even if he did it could have been one of those situations where you make what you believe to be a correct statement, find out you were wrong, and then issue a correction to your prior statement. I wouldn’t classify that as lying, provided you genuinely believe the first statement you made.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:
With a different apostle, Elder Ballard, he claims in one video that the church hasn’t hid the true church history from its members, but then in another video he claims the opposite.I looked this one up so I could get the exact language.
Context: The question was asked, “What advice/guidance would you give for answering tough questions about Church history when we are asked about them by someone who is struggling with their faith?”
Ballard:
Quote:But it’s this idea that the church is hiding something, that we would have to say as two apostles [Oaks was with him] who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the quorum of the twelve from the beginning of time. There has been no attempt on the part, in any way, of the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.
Now, we’ve had the Joseph Smith papers, we didn’t have those. Where they are in our hands now and so we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph. It’s wonderful we are. There are volumes of it, there’s so much of in those books now on my bookshelf. Maybe you’ve read them all, but I haven’t. I’m a slow reader!
So, just trust us, wherever you are in the world and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. That’s the Lord’s way.
I’m not aware of any comments by Ballard where he claims the opposite. The opposite would be, “We attempted to hide things from you.” I can’t imagine Ballard saying the opposite, even if he believed it.
I do find his comments about the Joseph Smith papers interesting. He said we (which I take to mean he includes himself) are learning more about JS. I think there’s an assumption that the apostles know everything about everything when it comes to the church but maybe they’re learning the same things we’re learning at roughly the same time or maybe they’re not learning them at all. Can you actively hide something you don’t yet know?
Now… I think there has been an intentional effort to whitewash history to only tell the faith promoting/narrative supporting side. In my opinion that is a form of dishonesty but that’s only my opinion, someone else may not see it that way, but back to Ballard.
From his perspective he may believe the church hasn’t hidden anything. From another perspective people believe the church has. From the perspective of people that believe the church has hidden things, it can look as though Ballard is lying but that’s not necessarily the case.
I think it all comes down to guessing at the knowledge and motivations of others.
Thanks, Nibbler, for sharing your perspective. I try to give people the benefit and not judge them harshly or condemn them. At the same time, the Lord says we all need to use discernment, although that’s different discussion entirely. I think there is a good example of how difficult this issue can be in the Bible. The Gospels tell different versions of the ministry of Jesus. In some cases (fairly numerous), they contradict each other. A very simple example is Jesus fasting in the wilderness. Matthew describes a typical Jewish fast lasting 40 days, where there is no food or water from sunup to sundown (like the Islamic Ramadan), while Luke adds a statement that Jesus ate nothing the entire time. (Of note, Luke does not say Jesus drank nothing, also. We assume that, based on our definition of fasting.)
[As an interesting side note: Matthew was a tax collector, while Luke was a physician. Stereotyping, Matthew probably was practical and systematic, while Luke probably was more mystical and versed in “spiritual” issues (since medicine back then included mystical/spiritual elements). It would make sense that Matthew would see a standard, important, long-term fast, while Luke would see a physical miracle or extraordinary accomplishment.)
If we take Luke’s account to mean no food and no water, it is physically impossible, while even no food alone is next to impossible to do and still be be reasonably healthy and coherent, so I accept Matthew’s account – but Luke was focused on highlighting Jesus as a miracle worker, so his account fits his overall narrative better. Was he lying, or did he hear the account and automatically assume a miraculous event, or did he hear the story from someone else who assumed or was taught a miraculous event – or was it actually a miraculous event?
I can’t know with absolute certainty, but I accept the non-miraculous version for three reasons: it makes more sense to me; I don’t need it to be miraculous for it to be meaningful to me; it is more meaningful to me if it is not miraculous.
Add the issue of multiple plausible interpretations of various stories and events (like why Judas “betrayed” Jesus and Peter denied knowing and following Jesus), and we can begin to realize how difficult (or even impossible) it is to understand people fully – even people we know quite well.
Old-Timer, I agree. The Gospels are interesting that way. Some leave in certain details of Jesus Christ and His apostles, while others leave those out and add in new ones. I don’t follow them. I have come to equilibrium with the church. It is not a big part of my life and in my view, deserves the minor spot it occupies in my life and the life of my family. Based on Ann Pfeffer’s (sp?) testimony, we now know Dehlin’s intent from the beginning was to take down the church. Melvin Jones wrote:
Based on Ann Pfeffer’s (sp?) testimony, we now know Dehlin’s intent from the beginning was to take down the church.
It would be nice to have a link to Ann Pfeffer’s statement. I tried Googling but came up empty.
FWIW, in the beginning of John Dehlin’s faith crisis I do not believe it was his aim to “bring down the church.” He has undoubtedly become more antagonistic since his excommunication, but he was not always antagonistic. Also FWIW, John was the founder of this forum although he is not currently active here. This forum has helped many people StayLDS over the decades of its existence.
I looked up the words “Ann Pfeffer’s statement about John Dehlin” and this is all I found: https://www.tiktok.com/discover/Anne-peffer-john-dehlin . She complained that John is practicing marriage and family therapy without a license. He has a degree but not a license.DarkJedi wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
Based on Ann Pfeffer’s (sp?) testimony, we now know Dehlin’s intent from the beginning was to take down the church.
It would be nice to have a link to Ann Pfeffer’s statement. I tried Googling but came up empty.
FWIW, in the beginning of John Dehlin’s faith crisis I do not believe it was his aim to “bring down the church.” He has undoubtedly become more antagonistic since his excommunication, but he was not always antagonistic. Also FWIW, John was the founder of this forum although he is not currently active here. This forum has helped many people StayLDS over the decades of its existence.
From what I can tell by reading up on the information linked. There is an individual that wants to go by the pseudonym Rosebud (I think it is an important sign of respect to honor such requests) that has made claims and charges of sexual harrassment against John Dehlin. It sounds like John and his defenders would like to understand what happened as an affair (although one between two people of very different power and influence). Rosebud feels that John subsequently used his power and influence to attack her reputation in the Mormon internet eco-sphere. I did not listen to the 3 hour podcast/testimony. Even if Rosebud said something in there to the effect that “Dehlin’s intent from the beginning was to take down the church,” I do not think that we could accept that at face value. There has been some bad blood between the parties and some additional corroboration would be needed.
DarkJedi wrote:
Also FWIW, John was the founder of this forum although he is not currently active here. This forum has helped many people StayLDS over the decades of its existence.
It is worth noting that, though John Dehlin founded StayLDS, he has not been an active participant here in many years (10+). In addition, StayLDS has not been financially supported by the Open Stories Foundation in at least 5 years. Given Rosebud’s concern of not getting equal treatment in these areas – I think it is important to state upfront that StayLDS has been no part of any of that history and is now only tangentially connected to John and the OSF.
On the other hand, ultimately it is not part of our mission to try to deduce the truth of what happened between John and Rosebud. I am saddened by what I have read so far.
Well said, Roy. I should have pointed out that John and the foundation have not been involved here in a long time. As to the link and Ann Pfeffer or Rosebud, I’m in no position to judge or determine what happened there as far as any harassment or abuse. That would seem to be something for a court to decide. I will say that from what I read on their link I do not see evidence that John intended to take down the church from the beginning. Again, his podcast is much more antagonistic than his earlier endeavors, and perhaps the podcast has a goal to take down the church (I admit I got bored and didn’t read every word of the linked site to see that evidence). My own direct interaction with John was before the podcast (and before his excommunication) and was limited but overall positive and encouraging. What I got from the linked site was from the perspective of a disgruntled former employee. I will say that I agree with John’s detractors in that it does appear he is in the podcast mostly for his own financial gain. We do live in a capitalist society and that’s to be expected I suppose.
DarkJedi wrote:
Well said, Roy. I should have pointed out that John and the foundation have not been involved here in a long time.As to the link and Ann Pfeffer, I’m in no position to judge or determine what happened there as far as any harassment or abuse. That would seem to be something for a court to decide. I will say that from what I read on her link I do not see evidence that John intended to take down the church from the beginning. Again, his podcast is much more antagonistic than his earlier endeavors, and perhaps the podcast has a goal to take down the church (I admit I got bored and didn’t read every word of the linked site to see that evidence). My own direct interaction with John was before the podcast (and before his excommunication) and was limited but overall positive and encouraging. What I got from the linked site was from the perspective of a disgruntled former employee. I will say that I agree with John’s detractors in that it does appear he is in the podcast mostly to for his own financial gain. We do live in a capitalist society and that’s to be expected I suppose.
Ok that’s fine. There are issues beyond legality, however. Kate Kelly and Kristy Money have accused him of sexist compensation practices, as well as attempt to silence his female accusers by calling them crazy.Melvin Jones wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Well said, Roy. I should have pointed out that John and the foundation have not been involved here in a long time.As to the link and Ann Pfeffer, I’m in no position to judge or determine what happened there as far as any harassment or abuse. That would seem to be something for a court to decide. I will say that from what I read on her link I do not see evidence that John intended to take down the church from the beginning. Again, his podcast is much more antagonistic than his earlier endeavors, and perhaps the podcast has a goal to take down the church (I admit I got bored and didn’t read every word of the linked site to see that evidence). My own direct interaction with John was before the podcast (and before his excommunication) and was limited but overall positive and encouraging. What I got from the linked site was from the perspective of a disgruntled former employee. I will say that I agree with John’s detractors in that it does appear he is in the podcast mostly to for his own financial gain. We do live in a capitalist society and that’s to be expected I suppose.
Ok that’s fine. There are issues beyond legality, however. Kate Kelly and Kristy Money have accused him of sexist compensation practices, as well as attempt to silence his female accusers by calling them crazy.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MCLZ4vWcGEU
I’m not defending John or saying he’s a good guy. He is who he is, and if people have a problem with his business practices (or him personally) there’s really nothing I can do. The original question of this thread was whether people here follow John Dehlin or Bill Reel. I answered I that I do not. Judging by other responses there don’t seem to be many followers of either here.
Putting on my moderator hat: This is not the place to bash others or address others on other forums or sites. Such is expressly forbidden in the forum rules (
https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=852 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=852 Quote:This is not a forum to address posts or comments directly to people outside this forum. This is a place to discuss our feelings and beliefs in a supportive and uplifting manner, even when our comments and discussions are passionate and diverse and deeply heartfelt. It is FINE to explore concerns and disagreements with anything, but it is NOT fine to post messages addressed to anyone outside this forum. That simply is not our mission, and it can’t appear to be our mission.
As previously stated, John Dehlin does not participate here and has not for many years. If you have a problem with John take it up with him and address it through legal channels. Further statements about John’s character and/or business practices will result in this thread being locked.
- The topic ‘Anyone Here Still Follow John Dehlin Or Bill Reel’ is closed to new replies.