- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve stayed out of the Dehlin debate in recent months, but have followed the developments closely. I will always owe john for his mission and for mormon stories, but I have been saddened with how negative it is now compared to how it started. I am saddened that there is not equal air time given to both sides and that mormon stories has become a polarizing force rather than a means of understanding. When I read the transcript provided by Dehlin of his August meeting with Brian King, I was frustrated that King hand picked statements made here and there regarding Johns negative bent, and that there weren’t more recent positive examples of the many fair minded people who have elevated the discussion over the years that John could draw from to counter with. I felt it was a missed opportunity for the church not to work with mormon stories in some capacity, be it lending themselves to interviews, or advocating for fair minded and intelligent people to be interviewed. I realize John himself has become a barrier to that happening too. What was anyone else’s impression of the meeting?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thing that I think about most is how I think most TBM’s will view this. I despise that some will delight in it and be blind to the pride and arrogance (and in many cases ignorance) that they have. I realize that there are blind spots I also have. I also see how I view him now – very differently than I would have 3 years ago. I also think about how this looks for the church. Are people going to see, “If you believe X, Y, and Z you are welcome, otherwise we will kick you out if you even dare say you question the emperor’s clothes.”
I also wonder how many are going to give up even trying to stay with the church and just throw in the towel and vent at how bad the church is.
I see part of this as John saying, “if you want to stay, fine, if you want/need to leave the church then I will put some mattresses at the bottom of the cliff so it does not hurt so much.” The church seems to have come along and say, “We WANT that cliff to hurt so people will be very reluctant to go there”
It is a sad day. I do hope John keeps to the high road and shows that he isn’t full of hate. He seems to. His interview he gave at 11 Mountain time mentioned quite clear that he didn’t want anyone to have anger towards his stake president as he was “just doing his job.” John also asked some of those at his vigil to take down signs of some church leaders that were disparaging.
Quote:
I also wonder how many are going to give up even trying to stay with the church and just throw in the towelI think a lot will. The press releases on both sides haven’t helped.
Quote:The thing that I think about most is how I think most TBM’s will view this.
My husband just emailed a friend in Idaho who was just released as a Bishop. My husband asked what the post-bishop thought of the John Dehlin thing? The friends reply, “Is he from Idaho? I don’t know about him.”
For me, I am tired, teary and weary. This was harder on me than I expected. John isn’t someone I personally look up to, I have only listened to a hand full of his earlier podcasts, but something about how this came together, about how the larger organization responded, and the muddier waters of what is and isn’t
allowedhas just crushed me today. I even tried to stay away. I should have done better and gone a trip somewhere and left technology at home. Quote:the muddier waters of what is and isn’t allowed has just crushed me today.
For whatever reason, I feel clearer than ever that the real issue is followers with some sort of clearly delineated borders. Personal expressions are OK. Participating in discussions is fine. It’s organizing groups to push for progressive change in the church before leaders are ready to make those changes or feel they’ve received revelation in accordance with those changes that causes disciplinary actions to be taken. Well, that and the occasional leader roulette.
It’s the same problem with being an early adopter of technology: the cost is high. If you adopt change after others have already vetted it out, the cost is lower and the benefits are better.
Well said, HG. You point out some very very important distinctions on behaviors. hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:the muddier waters of what is and isn’t allowed has just crushed me today.
For whatever reason, I feel clearer than ever that the real issue is followers with some sort of clearly delineated borders. Personal expressions are OK. Participating in discussions is fine. It’s organizing groups to push for progressive change in the church before leaders are ready to make those changes or feel they’ve received revelation in accordance with those changes that causes disciplinary actions to be taken. Well, that and the occasional leader roulette.
It’s the same problem with being an early adopter of technology: the cost is high. If you adopt change after others have already vetted it out, the cost is lower and the benefits are better.
I agree. Honestly the Oaks/Christofferson Trib Talk really drove that home for me. I don’t think they get much more hard line and strict than Oaks.
I too have to agree (once again) with hawkgrrrl’s accurate summation.
DarkJedi wrote:I don’t think they get much more hard line and strict than Oaks.
Except BKP, but he is running out of energy.hawkgrrrl’s comment is why it bugs me so much when people over-simplify John’s case by saying it proves there is no room for anyone who questions or doubts – even though I understand how easy it is to reach that conclusion when he was caricatured into becoming “every Mormon” by so many people. That isn’t the case. He isn’t every Mormon, and he did way more than just question or doubt – or even question, doubt and ask publicly. He pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed . . . even after he was asked to stop, over a LONG period of time. He refused completely to acknowledge openly the movement that was and is happening, always saying it’s not enough and more had to be done NOW!!!! At least, that is the clear message that was broadcast – and, at some point, organizations always remove those who fight them publicly and refuse to moderate their approach.
That is the crux for me:
John refused to moderate his demands in any way, to any degree (and they were demands, no matter how he or anyone else framed them – just like the OW protests were protests, no matter how strongly they denied it).
Having said all of that, I do see John being less confrontation now – and, in a way, I think his excommunication might be a blessing for him at this point in his life. I think he had started to become beholden to a bitter crowd when he monetized his work, and now that he no longer is a member fighting his church leadership I hope he can do as he has said he wants to do and broaden his effort to people of all faiths. Hopefully, that will help take the nasty edge off that I have seen develop over the last couple of years.
Ray said: Quote:Hopefully, that will help take the nasty edge off that I have seen develop over the last couple of years.
I hope the excommunication does that too. I admit I haven’t really felt I have a dog in this fight, my FC is very new and I haven’t followed JD in the past. I do know the FB group can be very negative and bitter. I have watched more as a fascinated gawker driving past the scene of an accident–eyes open, a bit shell-shocked at what I was seeing, and watching for the aftermath of twisted wreckage. That being said, I have been saddened by the many comments I have been reading online, not just yesterday, but in the weeks leading up to this.
There really do seem to be two camps forming, those who support JD, and those who decry his doubts, methods, and dare I say, his followers. Of course we don’t hear the middle roaders, like Ray, and others here. Perhaps they are the more silent majority, but I have noticed a tone from both sides that is shrill, angry, and accusatory. As a new person to their FC, I am hurt and disappointed that my fellow Saints see me as someone of no faith at all, as a person who is weak in testimony, and a member who has been fooled by Satan. They don’t seem to understand at all why the admission on Race and the Priesthood hurt, or why the revelation that JS didn’t even have the plates present when he “translated” them bothers me, and the wives and the lying. I could go on, but all of you on here understand. Perhaps we are developing Factions, much like those of the Divergent book series. At least that is how it feels, and there is little understanding from those who see us as weak and misled. For me, the culmination of the JD saga is much less painful than the harsh words cloaked in “love” from those who see me as blind and weak.
Ray, i am curious. When and how did John cross the line over and over again? I haven’t followed him activity but I see his fb stuff in my feed and nothing really strikes me as “over the line”. It’s been a while since I listened to his podcasts. I definitely noticed a more bitter attitude towards the church towards his newer podcasts. Not trying to come across negative about your post, I’m just curious when/how JD crossed the line. 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bear wrote:Ray, i am curious. When and how did John cross the line over and over again? I haven’t followed him activity but I see his fb stuff in my feed and nothing really strikes me as “over the line”. It’s been a while since I listened to his podcasts. I definitely noticed a more bitter attitude towards the church towards his newer podcasts. Not trying to come across negative about your post, I’m just curious when/how JD crossed the line.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel that the following quote provides some context on how the church officially feels that John “crossed a line.”
Quote:“The council concluded,” King wrote, “that you were in apostasy on the following issues — your teachings disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ; your statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction; your statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints as being the true church with power and authority from God.”
King noted that doubts and questions were not the reason for the decision, but that Dehlin crossed a line when he spread what King characterized as “teachings” widely via the Internet, and that Dehlin had told King he would not stop.
I wonder how this might have worked out differently. What if John continued to explore the issues but remained more impartial? What if John never made any personal conclusions public?
How is this different than Bill Reel’s podcasts? I know that Bill contradicts some past LDS teachings (like anti-evolution) and encourages our church to distance itself from such issues that are not core to the gospel and make us seem weirdly fundamental. What if Bill did a podcast on the BoM/BoA where one of the possibilities discussed was of 19th century creation with or without divine assistance? Would that cross the line or would it only cross the line if Bill stated that 19th century creation was his personal conclusion?
I assume it also matters how widely it is distributed. Could I be exed for saying I do not believe in Jesus on my facebook page?
Interesting questions. I suppose the answers vary depending on a host of variables.
First, bear, I didn’t use the term “crossed the line” in my comment. If I were to put it into my own words, I have seen John go from a relatively impartial chronicler of various views to an opponent of orthodoxy and the leadership. The tone has gotten nastier; the percentage of critical posts has risen dramatically; the insistence that all he is doing is questioning and asking has become constant; etc. This took a LONG time to happen – and I think those making the decisions finally lost patience with him as he grew more extreme.
I don’t see the same person I knew back in the day.
As one who has listened to almost every MS podcast that has been produced I have been trying to define that line that was crossed from personally doubting to “teaching” or promoting teachings contrary to the church. I have personally viewed 99.5% of what John has said as coming from a position of “this is the way I see it” and not “you should believe this way too.” I realize it can quickly become fuzzy when someone is emotionally speaking their mind, but maybe my foundation image of MS was set for too long that the objective is to explore and validate all voices — with the idea that those members out of the norm that felt silenced because their testimony “did not measure up” could relate and gain some validation from MS. I just never viewed John’s cause as winning new converts. (I should clarify to testimony claims, the items listed by his stake president. I do see John as advocating for OW and marriage equality.)
I do understand that podcasts such as with Michael Coe or the Tanners or others who DO want to convert could be seen as trying to win converts. But I guess as I am generally stubborn to change my ideas I saw them as an academic exercise in listening to other opinions and I didn’t let it sink in that they really thought they could convince people to change their beliefs.
My opinion more generally is people believe what they believe, you’re not often going to change minds – but we should learn to hear and speak civilly with each other. In that spirit I think it is sad that the action against John tends to send a message that “yes, you can doubt, but you can’t speak openly about those doubts because you may influence someone else to doubt too.” And I do understand John’s point that being backed into an inauthentic corner (not feeling free to express honest opinions) can lead to mental health issues.
Just to be clear and avoid misunderstanding: I still like and respect John – and I would prefer he not be excommunicated. I am not trying to dismiss or bash him in any way. I’m just trying to explain some of what I have seen over the years – and, particularly, the changes I have observed.
Orson wrote:As one who has listened to almost every MS podcast that has been produced I have been trying to define that line that was crossed from personally doubting to “teaching” or promoting teachings contrary to the church.
I have personally viewed 99.5% of what John has said as coming from a position of “this is the way I see it” and not “you should believe this way too.” I realize it can quickly become fuzzy when someone is emotionally speaking their mind, but maybe my foundation image of MS was set for too long that the objective is to explore and validate all voices — with the idea that those members out of the norm that felt silenced because their testimony “did not measure up” could relate and gain some validation from MS. I just never viewed John’s cause as winning new converts. (I should clarify to testimony claims, the items listed by his stake president. I do see John as advocating for OW and marriage equality.)
I do understand that podcasts such as with Michael Coe or the Tanners or others who DO want to convert could be seen as trying to win converts. But I guess as I am generally stubborn to change my ideas I saw them as an academic exercise in listening to other opinions and I didn’t let it sink in that they really thought they could convince people to change their beliefs.
My opinion more generally is people believe what they believe, you’re not often going to change minds – but we should learn to hear and speak civilly with each other. In that spirit I think it is sad that the action against John tends to send a message that “yes, you can doubt, but you can’t speak openly about those doubts because you may influence someone else to doubt too.” And I do understand John’s point that being backed into an inauthentic corner (not feeling free to express honest opinions) can lead to mental health issues.
I like the way you worded this. I have listened to almost all episodes of MS the last 18 months or so and selected ones from the past. I feel he is saying (and I have heard the words from him over and over), “If you feel you need to leave, leave and if you want to stay, then stay.” I feel I could meet with him and say I am staying and it would be fine by him. If I told him I was leaving I don’t think he would rejoice, but would be concerned that my landing would be as soft as possible. I don’t think many in the church could ever even say, “Sometimes the church does not work for some people.” They can’t even wrap their mind around that possibility.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.