- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Why do you feel betrayed by John Dehlin, GB Smith ? John is very inclusive of all brands of Mormons within Mormonism. BeLikeChrist
BeLikeChrist wrote:Why do you feel betrayed by John Dehlin, GB Smith ? John is very inclusive of all brands of Mormons within Mormonism.
BeLikeChrist
I think my feelings are summed up pretty well by a poster on the Postmormon board called Thewriterwithin. The post is about midway through the second page of posts on Dehlin’s leaving the church and then in subsequent posts explains a bit more.
Quote:Quote:
mormonstories:John Dehlin here.
A few really quick things…
1) Thanks for all the kind and encouraging words
2) Yes….my wife and I no longer attend church, and we no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims (given existing information)
3) Just for accuracy’s sake (folks are writing stuff on Facebook)….I do not at this time have plans to resign, and my meeting Thursday night is at the request of my SP.
Thx again for the kind words of support and encouragement.
John
Looks like I spoke too soon. John, this sounds like more of the same yes/no, the-story’s-up/the-story’s-down, I-am/I-am-not, I’m-doing-this-to-help-you-stay-Mormon/I’m-doing-this-to-help-you-leave, Only-My-Hairdresser-Knows-For-Sure! that has made this lone onlooker such a cynic of not only your work, but you.
I wouldn’t have even believed a post announcing you were leaving (haven’t you done that before?) except it came from Jeff. Did Jeff mishear you? Did you change your mind? Have you gotten to the point in your psychology studies where you learn about the Games People Play? Instead of honestly resigning — and taking some responsibility — are you going to manipulate the church into excommunicating you? What?
I feel burned — and not for the first time. I’m tempted to say I will never open another thread about you or pay the slightest attention to anything that contains your name, but, sigh, like everyone else, I can’t look away from a train wreck.
I do feel you would make an interesting article in your own right. And I would like to write it. But I doubt you would approve or participate.
Anyway this is most of it for me. I hope that the church has the good sense to just let him fade away and not let him make him more of himself than he is.
I don’t know GB, I guess many of us do the whole “I’m in, I’m out” routine. I’ve done it a couple times on this board since I’ve joined. I hope I don’t become a “joke” to the board. I guess it’s like any high profile person —- we are much harder and expect much more from folks in “power” positions. And when they screw up, even a little – it can become a big deal
I understand your disappointment, but personally I’m going to give the guy some slack and worry about myself.
What I find amusing is that when people do the “I’m in, I’m out” routine (Let’s call it the Mormon Hokey Pokey — you put your left food in, you put your left foot out…), often, no one really seems to care!! Even at the Ward level. I’ve seen it in PEC meetings when someone raises the fact that someone has mentioned inactivity — no one seems to care much. The attitude is “Oh well, there goes another one”. “We aren’t going to be swayed by threats of in activity!!!…”, or assumptions the person is not living a commandment and is therefore reaping its effects — apostasy….However, they seem bent on trying to get the stone cold back again, despite the low return on effort invested. It’s odd!!!
As far as John Dehlin goes, here are my thoughts. I had posted them earlier, but deleted them, but here goes now that others are openly sharing:
1. I hope it goes well with the SP. I hope it’s not for some kind of initial interview to assess if disciplinary action is in order given his high profile involvement in these sites that are both pro and quasi-negative about the Church at the same time. However, that is between John and the Church; nonethless, I express hope.
2. I think his movement into less activity is a bit of a blow for the people who may have seen him as the paradox in action — someone who doesn’t agree, but who stays active nonetheless. If he’s not able to sustain the philosophies espoused here, and in the How To Stay article, it takes wind out of the sails of the StayLDS.com schooner.
3. Schools of thought always seem to wither on the vine when their formal or informal leadership stop subscribing to or modeling their philosophies — whether they accepted the role as leader or model or not. John has received media attention (such as over the Book of Mormon movie), and is apparently well known among the disaffected and partly friendly. Therefore, he may be considered a bit of an informal spokesperson for the non-mainstream conscience of the Church; so I think he qualifies in this regard.
4. I’m also wondering if the party-line isn’t right after all. That in frequenting boards like this you end up NOT nourishing the seed the way you should, and so, it doesn’t grow and swell….it leads to less activity, with JD as a case in point. I have to confess, for all the community-feeling you get on site like this, there is also exposure to additional doubts and concerns that can fuel existing ones, so in trying to make things better, it can actually make it worse for some people.
However, there isn’t any other alternative out there within the Church, is there? This is the best we have since the LDS Church seems to have very little room for the disaffected under its own tent.
SD wrote:That in frequenting boards like this you end up NOT nourishing the seed the way you should, and so, it doesn’t grow and swell….it leads to less activity, with JD as a case in point. I have to confess, for all the community-feeling you get on site like this, there is also exposure to additional doubts and concerns that can fuel existing ones, so in trying to make things better, it can actually make it worse for some people.
From my own experience, I think you’re onto something here (I wouldn’t want to speculate on the reasons behind John’s inactivity for any other reason than those he’s stated). And even if you’re not exposed to new questions or concerns, seeing more people struggling with local leadership or feeling unwelcome or whatever, just kind of ratchets things up. It builds up the negative image of the church as opposed to the positive one.
That’s why I think the church itself would be wise to create some sort of support group(s) for those struggling. By setting up a support group, the institution/corporation, with support from local leadership, a tacit message would be sent to doubters: “We want you to stay in our fold and we love you as you are.” The sanctioned forum would temper some of the real negative feelings and people wouldn’t feel rejected or the need to conceal their feelings.
As it is now, doubters have to turn to channels outside of the church for support and to discuss questions and experiences. We hide behind aliases and avatars for fear of being outed as a doubter, and of course most of us are loathe to express our true feelings in Sunday School or EQ/RS. We feel unaccepted and like we have to hide, which feeds, at some level, some antagonism or negative feelings toward the institution/congregation/theology.
Just a thought, riffing on your astute observation.
Much can be said by the company we keep. We are all influenced by “group think” to some degree as humans – sometimes good, sometimes not so much. Even if a fundamental assumption is healthy, the surrounding ideas that a particular group espouses may not be. Andrew wrote:SD wrote:From my own experience, I think you’re onto something here (I wouldn’t want to speculate on the reasons behind John’s inactivity for any other reason than those he’s stated). And even if you’re not exposed to new questions or concerns, seeing more people struggling with local leadership or feeling unwelcome or whatever, just kind of ratchets things up. It builds up the negative image of the church as opposed to the positive one.
That’s why I think the church itself would be wise to create some sort of support group(s) for those struggling. By setting up a support group, the institution/corporation, with support from local leadership, a tacit message would be sent to doubters: “We want you to stay in our fold and we love you as you are.” The sanctioned forum would temper some of the real negative feelings and people wouldn’t feel rejected or the need to conceal their feelings.
I have had similar thoughts, but I don’t believe it’s appropriate to make it local. Boards like these thrive because the local culture REJECTS people who have doubts or concerns to share. I don’t see the local Church organization supporting this kind of forum very well. They tend to quote hard-line statements from past GA’s and such. For this work, it would have to be more of a national board, with trained moderators. Plus, the hit and miss efforts of local volunteers would make for a very uneven and unreliable experience.
However, I think people like Ray do a good job of walking the fine line between SMA’s and providing the necessary empathy toward those who struggle, as well as insights now and then which are like Ah-Ha! moments you don’t find at Church now and then. One needs to accept the concerns people have, and not reject them outright, so it would take a special kind of person to moderate a Church-sponsored forum like this.
However, I don’t see this happening for a variety of reasons:
a) It would require funding. End of commentary there.
b) It’s totally against the “see your Bishop” culture which presses everything down to the lowest level possible in the Church. It also runs counter to the traditional kinds of thinking about the gospel which is deeply rooted in our culture. There is no way the Church culture could accept the kind of divergent thought and advice you get on boards like these, even from those who are pro-Church.
c) It would be hard to manage registration anonymously. I think the Church would have to know they are serving members, and not trolls and anti-Mormons. And this would create fear in the minds of the less-actives who would be afraid of consequences if they get too negative. I’ve been really negative at times, and I would not use a Church-sponsored site for that reason alone if I had to prove I was a member and make myself traceable.
d) I think it would put the Church in an awkward position where at times, people would say or do things that would qualify them for discipline. Then what does the Church do? Destroy the trust of the board by turning the person in???
While I agree there is room to neutralize the negative, while accentuating the positive, I don’t see the official Church organization as the origin of that. I wouldn’t trust it one bit. It would have to be a non-official group.
John is just a guy. Like the rest of us. He’s an energetic, crazy, loving, suffering, hopeful guy. I think he’s doing a lot of good, and I don’t think there is any realistic way the church can provide the same service at this time. SilentDawning wrote:4. I’m also wondering if the party-line isn’t right after all. That in frequenting boards like this you end up NOT nourishing the seed the way you should, and so, it doesn’t grow and swell….it leads to less activity, with JD as a case in point. I have to confess, for all the community-feeling you get on site like this, there is also exposure to additional doubts and concerns that can fuel existing ones, so in trying to make things better, it can actually make it worse for some people.
SD, I think that for some of us, ward participation is not nourishing at all. I, for example, have not since 2003 had any special faith in the LDS church. What I get at church is continual provocation and less general nourishment than I might get from exploring other avenues. But I keep going. And my online participation helps me to be positive about my Mormon and LDS identity.
On the other hand, if I had a basic special faith in the LDS narrative, then I agree my participation online would probably tend to destroy that special faith. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing, especially here and at Mormon Stories, where the special faith would be gently replaced by a more robust general faith.
Tom Haws wrote:SilentDawning wrote:SD, I think that for some of us, ward participation is not nourishing at all. I, for example, have not since 2003 had any special faith in the LDS church. What I get at church is continual provocation and less general nourishment than I might get from exploring other avenues. But I keep going. And my online participation helps me to be positive about my Mormon and LDS identity.
I’m with you on this….I don’t see the nourishment there anymore either; and you are right about provocation. Where do you find nourishment when a key component of its delivery (Church experience) is no longer satisfying? If the answer is — in private study — then why do we even need the bulk of Church experience anyway?
As I’ve said previously more than once, I know how fortunate I am to be in a ward where I do get good nourishment regularly – certianly not in every talk and lesson, but regularly. I also committed a LONG time ago to be one of the reasons others get good nourishment at church, fwiw. “The Church” really is even more the local unit than the global membership and leadership, imo – and it’s really easy to forget that SO many people get really good nourishment in the LDS Church, especially when you personally don’t.
Ray, the issue isn’t whether others get nourishment or not — I believe many do, and also have been instrumental in providing that nourishment….the issue is the many of US do not get nourishment. I understand, SD. I really do. I’ve been there – in more than one location. I’m just not there now. John has my deep felt appreciation. Yes, I fully understand the cycling, the ebb and flow of the spirit, the pain and questions of a deeply embedded indocternation as well as a lifetime of experience in that which is bitter and that which is sweet. My thoughts and prayers are with John at this time. (I think the meeting is tonight)
(rockslider)
edit: I double check the postmormon thread I based that on, and it does look like the meeting was last night
So when do we hear how it went?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.