- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Another FB forum reminded me of this post that I think is relevant on this topic. These are my thoughts about what constitutes being anti. To me, John didn’t qualify. The church took its action, perhaps rightly, because as an insider, John’s criticisms bore more weight with existing members, and he does go too far (for my taste) in declaring the evidence decided against any supernatural claims (e.g. when he says the BOM’s historicity claims are demonstrably false – absence of evidence is not evidence in and of itself). http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/11/22/who-are-the-anti-mormons/ Quote:In my view, someone is anti-Mormon if they believe that being Mormon is foolish or bad, if they think people would be better off without it, and if they consequently seek to bring it down. Those who seek to improve it through change, even if they are critical in the process, even if they have personally left it, are not anti-Mormon in my opinion – even if an outcome is that some people do take their information as justification to leave the church. Frankly, many also leave due to orthodox opinions shared at church, and nobody is taking those folks to task over it as far as I can see.
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.
Bear, I think it’s fb posts like this one that cross the line from discussing viewpoints openly and just being critical:
“Calling the Book of Mormon “Bible Fan Fiction” makes perfect sense to me. It’s almost the best 3 words I can muster to describe exactly what the Book of Mormon is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction Your thoughts?”
He also has several FB posts with a mocking tone toward general authorities. I don’t think it matters who he interviews–that was the value of MoSto–that he could interview a blatantly anti-Mormon person and humanize them, then do the same with an apologist, or a fundamentalist. He sought to understand people who were different. It was good stuff. I don’t think it matters that he interview Sandra Tanner. In fact I really enjoyed that episode because he broke down the legend of “The Tanners” and brought it into the realm of thoughtful humans doing what they thought was right. However, where things went south was that he began more and more to side with the people he interviewed, and oppose others. It isn’t always this black and white, but I’m simplifying to make my point. Now instead of building bridges between believing and non-believing/struggling members, he has shifted his focus more toward helping those who are transitioning out. It’s still a worthy cause, but it is unfortunate that it has created such a schism.
I have been following John Dehlin off and on for a few years. While I haven’t listened to all of his podcasts, I must agree with Roy in that his overall demeanor seems to have changed quite a bit over time. Some of his earlier works seem to be a lot more faith promoting or just unorthodox but reasonable. Later he seemed to become more and more unorthodox to the point there was hardly anything orthodox at all…it seems that all there was left was just the “un” in unorthodox.
When he stated publicly that he didn’t attend ward meetings anymore…didn’t partake of the sacrament anymore…and started watching the Oprah Winfrey Network for spiritual food…I definitely felt that he was going rather sharply in a different direction.
One of the things that has been troubling lately…as a support of John Dehlin…I was quite taken back by a recent comment I read. I cannot remember it verbatim but to paraphrase, either John Dehlin is a righteous holy ghost led godly man, or he is the most seductive apostate the church has ever had.
I recognize that the statement may be a straw man and presenting a faulty argument…but nonetheless it has taken me by surprise. I never thought I would be led astray by an apostate…the thought never occurred to me…now I am sort of reevaluating John Dehlin and his place on my shelf and trying to figure out where he fits in.
Reading through this transcript I can’t help but feel that President King was being genuine and heartfelt. What more can you expect from a human being?
I also believe that having mass reach to the world is also frowned upon, when sharing opinions – and without even inciting opinions. For example, Grant Palmer didn’t try to start groups — but he did write a book that was widely disseminated that was contrarion. And ultimately, that led to him becoming a non-member again. Incidentally, I watched one of this podcasts, and he gave what I felt was an research report on why people leave the church based on a study he did. It was the myths of why people leave. In it he said
“Someone said a cult is an organization you can’t leave with dignity”. Then he described how doubters or people who want to leave end up losing all their friends, sometimes, their marriage and their family.
I thought it was odd that he slipped the cult definition in there like that.
One thing that John said in the transcript that I think is key is that he said the BOM was demonstrably false. I think that’s a problematic statement. It goes beyond doubt to certainty on the other side. Nobody can state things perfectly all the time, but that statement was pretty hardline. When we give up our black & white thinking inside the church it’s important not to replace it with black & white thinking outside the church. Is this an accurate accounting? richalger wrote:Is this an accurate accounting?
http://mormonvoices.org/3280/excommunication-of-john-dehlin
I am going to look over this a bit more tonight, but I was waiting on someone, so I had a chance to glance a this.My over all take is that just how John tends to spin thinks towards “it is mainly about my support of LGBT and OW”, the author(s) are spinning many things a bit different. Just a few things that caught my eye below.
He mentions
Quote:Dehlin has also repeatedly made it clear that he remained in the Church in part so that he could more easily influence it and its members to his way of thinking.[6]
so looking at the footnote #6
Quote:[6] “I stay [in the Church] because maintaining my membership increases my ability and influence to effect positive change within the church.” [John Dehlin, “Why I Stay,” Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium 2012.]
In my mind does this does not equate to saying he wants to do harm. In his mind he is trying to help the organization improve. He could make this point if he makes the case for what John is doing is wanting to take people out of the church. I have heard many quotes from John on the subject and I hear him saying he does not care if others leave or stay as long as they are fine with it. The author(s) seem to be trying to bend this to say what John WANTS to happen.Quote:Much of his online activity adopts the role of “exit-counselor” as he moves members away from belief.8 John states in his 2014 Mormon Stories End-of-Year Update that his goal moving forward is to “serve/support those who those [sic] transitioning away from Mormon orthodoxy.”9 No organization can be expected to permit someone who claims membership to simultaneously seek to undermine the organization and its goals and disparage it.
I don’t see how that automatically means he WANTS people to leave Mormonism and is undermining the church. What if his prodding is helping the church to open up on it’s history. It feels like the author assumes if you even care for the emotions of those that leave, then you are not part of team Mormon and therefore working against the church. In other words “entrenchment” – if you are not 100% on our side, you are against us. I see John as somewhere inbetween and I think that frightens some TBM’s even more because they can’t just say, “Look how angry and way out there they are – clearly the devil has their heart.”I am going to look at this again when I have more than 10 minutes to review it.
Rich: From the article you linked: Quote:John Dehlin also co-founded a website that was originally designed to assist individuals who no longer believed in basic tenets of the LDS faith in maintaining their social ties to the Church through deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops about their commitment to the Church.
Emphatically NO. This is not the mission, stated or unstated, of StayLDS. The article about John may be right on some points, but this particular statement is way off the mark. One reason John wasn’t that involved, IMO, is that our mission was not core to his MoSto mission. We are probably one end of his spectrum of activities. What I see in the article is that it’s a subjective worst-interpretation-possible of things that are probably not as black & white as the article assumes. John’s motives have doubtless evolved over time, and he also seems to have mixed feelings about some things.
Quote:Dehlin resumed open criticism of the LDS Church by publishing recordings of sacred temple ordinances which members are instructed not to discuss outside the temple
I’m unfamiliar with this. I have a hard time believing this happened or else it would likely be cited in his excommunication letter.
Quote:renewed interviews with prominent Church critics such as Simon Southerton and Brent Metcalf, and provided publicity to organizations that undermined the Church or taught doctrine contrary to the doctrines of the Church.
Interviewing critics isn’t a problem. Peggy Stack does that all the time. The second half of the statement seems deliberately vague. Which organizations are referenced? It doesn’t say.
SP letters to those who may be receiving a disciplinary council always include an expression of love and concern, so that’s not exception. The article seems to make a lot of to do about the SP and other leaders being magnanimous individuals taking time away from their families. John has likewise thanked them for that. The article makes them sound like martyrs or exceptional in some way, but that’s what they do. I don’t think it merits special note. That the same courtesy is not afforded to John is by design to make it look like he’s creating a problem for these good men by existing. The article also glosses over (using the traditional Utah passive voice) the source of the issues: complaints from local ward level tattlers, the usual sauce in which the disciplined ones are cooked.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:Dehlin resumed open criticism of the LDS Church by publishing recordings of sacred temple ordinances which members are instructed not to discuss outside the temple
I’m unfamiliar with this. I have a hard time believing this happened or else it would likely be cited in his excommunication letter.
I wonder at times if what some people hold as sacred, they “think” no one can talk about that part of the temple and that we have covenanted not to disclose that part. Like saying the word “apron” … it’s not going to get a person excommunicated for saying aprons are used inthe temple. It may be sacred, and should be talked of respectfully, but there is no covenant I’ve made to not say “apron”.
I agree with what you said, HG. Much of the article is vague, and of much hearsay.
I agree with Looking Hard. Quote:John Dehlin also co-founded a website that was originally designed to assist individuals who no longer believed in basic tenets of the LDS faith in maintaining their social ties to the Church through deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops about their commitment to the Church.
[snip]
Dehlin at the time publicly expressed concern about his standing within the Church and he solicited testimonials from individuals he had helped remain socially in the Church to bolster an argument that he was not leading people out of the Church.
I do not know John and I do not listen to podcasts. I do however know StayLDS and a few years ago I wrote a brief write up for John on how the website has helped me work through my faith crisis. I find this characterization to be ill-informed, dismissive, and insulting.
I do not know of any particular quote that the author may have been referencing to state that we advocate “deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops” because there was no footnote. I believe that we regularly advocate against dumping or unloading all your doubts wholesale on church members. I know that we have also had discussions to beware of priesthood leader roulette and that once you are “out” to a priesthood leader it can be difficult or impossible to undo.
It is somewhat ironic that John is accused of apostasy for his very public statements of unbelief and yet this also seems to decry individuals staying in the church and being very quiet (“deceitful”) about their unbelief. What would the author suggest those with varying levels of doubts/unbelief do?
Overall the piece seems to have a very specific perspective and then cherry picks information to support that perspective.
Lots of spin in that article. Such as this part: Quote:“As Dehlin’s influence grew, he initiated organizations around the United States and other parts of the world known as “chapters” of his Mormon Stories organization. “Mormon Stories Retreats” were also initiated. These chapters and retreats encouraged individuals who were in the process of leaving the Church and abandoning their faith to gather together for support as opposed to turning to Church leaders for spiritual counsel and support. Testimonials of disbelief were common in such meetings, and the organization served to provide a church-like setting so as to ease the social aspects of departure from the faith.”
My favorite part: “as opposed to turning to Church leaders for spiritual counsel and support. ”
Don’t think I need to add explanation to that one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
startpoor wrote:Lots of spin in that article. Such as this part:
“As Dehlin’s influence grew, he initiated organizations around the United States and other parts of the world known as “chapters” of his Mormon Stories organization. “Mormon Stories Retreats” were also initiated. These chapters and retreats encouraged individuals who were in the process of leaving the Church and abandoning their faith to gather together for support as opposed to turning to Church leaders for spiritual counsel and support. Testimonials of disbelief were common in such meetings, and the organization served to provide a church-like setting so as to ease the social aspects of departure from the faith.”
My favorite part: “as opposed to turning to Church leaders for spiritual counsel and support. ”
Don’t think I need to add explanation to that one.
Yep. That is one where I really see John trying to help people that are now “alone” after being in a cozy warm ward all of their life. Then suddenly when mom is having a baby, nobody signs up for bringing meals over. Emotionally it is very hard.
but I realize most TBM’s can’t really look at that and not just say, “have faith and return to the church and your ward will welcome you back in.”
Roy wrote:I agree with Looking Hard.
Quote:John Dehlin also co-founded a website that was originally designed to assist individuals who no longer believed in basic tenets of the LDS faith in maintaining their social ties to the Church through deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops about their commitment to the Church.
[snip]
Dehlin at the time publicly expressed concern about his standing within the Church and he solicited testimonials from individuals he had helped remain socially in the Church to bolster an argument that he was not leading people out of the Church.
I do not know John and I do not listen to podcasts. I do however know StayLDS and a few years ago I wrote a brief write up for John on how the website has helped me work through my faith crisis. I find this characterization to be ill-informed, dismissive, and insulting.
I do not know of any particular quote that the author may have been referencing to state that we advocate “deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops” because there was no footnote. I believe that we regularly advocate against dumping or unloading all your doubts wholesale on church members. I know that we have also had discussions to beware of priesthood leader roulette and that once you are “out” to a priesthood leader it can be difficult or impossible to undo.
It is somewhat ironic that John is accused of apostasy for his very public statements of unbelief and yet this also seems to decry individuals staying in the church and being very quiet (“deceitful”) about their unbelief. What would the author suggest those with varying levels of doubts/unbelief do?
Overall the piece seems to have a very specific perspective and then cherry picks information to support that perspective.
That write-up was hard to read. It’s political and dismissive in nature. Unfortunately, I believe the author would suggest that those with varying levels of doubts/unbelief confess to Bishop, endure the doubt privately in the meantime, read scriptures, pray, and naturally become re-converted just as the fairy tale says it should happen. It’s impossible for any other outcome unless the person is not earnest enough or is doing something wrong. After all, we’re promised we’ll get our answers. And the Church is not wrong about anything.
:thumbup: 🙄 That’s one of the things that is so frustrating to me about this process: the need to live in secrecy for fear of what will happen should I reveal parts of my true self to others. It doesn’t matter how reasonable and accepting I try to be. If I don’t believe the way they believe, I am inferior, because…because essentially, church culture (even doctrine, to a point) says. It’s my fault. Even as some Bishops are more accepting than others and even in leadership there are varying styles of accepting disagreements, there’s still this looming fear over my head to keep quiet and bear it in silence. I don’t do well with that. It makes church a stressful place for me. Who can blame people for wanting to keep painful doubts private when there’s such external pressure associated?
As far as the Transcript…well, it’s settled. The Church doesn’t allow certain levels of dissent. It reserves its right to discipline members. I wish it was a church of free speech but it isn’t and in a case like this, when John is blatantly advertising his non-traditional beliefs and crossing several lines…he knew what was coming
Quote:The Church doesn’t allow certain levels of dissent.
The church doesn’t allow organized dissent that has a growing audience. The one thing that is encouraging, IMO, about the transcript, is that you can tell the bishop thinks John should be ex’d for far less than that, but he’s held in check somehow, as if he sought advice and was told “not just for disbelieving, not for expressing his views, but only for the size of his audience and influence.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.