John Dehlin Facing Excommunication

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

John posted a link to this very thoughtful (and IMHO accurate) link on John.

The real reason John will be ex’ed

Now I do think that he also has stated that he no longer believes – that is true. But there are thousands (if not almost 10 million) inactive Mormons that are inactive and probably couldn’t truthfully say the 100% believe. But I do think what bothers some in the church the most is that they think HE is trying to take people away from the faith. As Tom (the blog author) states, “Every topic he has covered on Mormon Stories has previously been discussed elsewhere.” and the one item that really touched my heart, “The Church offers no equivalent, sadly.” I fully agree that “the chasm will still exist” and the BIGGER issue can’t be excommunicated away.

One think I like about this post is that I feel I can actually post this to (some of) my TBM friends. It does not take a dig at anybody.

Thanks so much for posting this. I read it a couple of days ago and wondered if it was appropriate for us. It’s powerfully written and I hope the church is prepared for more of the same. There is still a dismissiveness in the church’s response to all of this that I hate.

Quote:

This experience has been heart wrenching and anguishing for many Latter-day Saints. Marriages and families were in jeopardy. Spouses who discovered the chasm often faced marital discord, and even divorce. Though the Internet has been commercially available to the masses for twenty years now, until very recently, the Church essentially ignored this growing phenomenon. No resources were developed or offered to those in a crisis of faith. Those who fell upon a crisis of faith were alone.

Until John Dehlin came long.

John discovered the chasm while serving as an early morning seminary teacher. Instead of struggling alone, John created a forum, Mormon Stories, to discuss the chasm issues in depth, honestly and respectfully. That’s what has made John unique. Every topic he has covered on Mormon Stories has previously been discussed elsewhere. However, religion generally, and Mormonism specifically, are extremely volatile and polarizing. Apologists and polemicists offer such charged, diametrically opposite treatments of Mormonism as to be essentially useless to a person struggling in a faith crisis. John’s unique contribution to Mormonism was the one-on-one help he has provided to thousands, as well as the even handed approach to discussing the chasm.

I think Tom Grover does take a dig, though. When he talks about the narrative of the Restoration being a faith-promoting game of “Telephone,” he ignores all of our faith, and love, and service. At least, that’s the feeling I think one could get from this. Maybe he’s not dismissing it, but the baby seems perilously close to being dumped out with the bathwater. The strivings of rank and file members to learn and serve are beautiful even if our “story” is poorly taught and understood. There are still things in that story that empower and inspire us. But that’s exactly what John Dehlin’s been saying, it seems to me.

Quote:

Eppur si muove.

Grover’s last sentence. I didn’t recognize it, but read that this is Galileo’s line sometime after being forced to recant his earth moving around sun claim. “And yet it moves.” I wish I understood what the church is hoping to accomplish by excommunicating John Dehlin. The chasm will still be there because the church created it.

[Anonymous]

I think Hawkgrrrl’s last comment is MUCH more important and relevant than many people realize.

Making money off of opposition to the Church seems like priestcraft, I’m sure, to leaders (and I’m not sure it’s not, in the strictest sense of how we tend to define that term) – and that has to play a large part in a leader’s perception of those who do it.

Denver Snuffer’s case might be the best example, but I think it has to be considered in John’s case when trying to figure out his situation and how it has unfolded.

[Anonymous]

Yes, until this article I was unaware of how lucrative this was for John Dehlin.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Yes, until this article I was unaware of how lucrative this was for John Dehlin.

Me too. I was aware that he was making some money, but hey – the Q12 make money selling books (and I don’t even know if they write most of it). I am fine with that. I would say that for the amount of time he puts into it he is getting rewarded well. I think it would have been better for John to come out and be not only transparent, but vocal on the finances within Mormon Stories. I am sure there are a bunch (majority) that wouldn’t care that he made (before taxes)

[Anonymous]

That throws this into a different light. But I’m not sure what kind of light. For me, podcasts meant to help members stay in the church are deserving of a certain amount of donation money, to cover expenses like recording equipment, website hosting fees, long distance charges (if any), artwork, maybe video production costs if any. And maybe a stipend for a person’s time. But I don’t see it as a defensible way to earn a living. It confuses motives and could even slant the website to controversy for its own sake rather than for truly addressing people’s doubts and concerns.

At that point it gets blurry to me. I agree that Apostles and others get paid, as do many church employees, and John does fill a void in the support for members in the church. But at the same time, it doesn’t feel right.

I guess I don’t know what to think about it at this point.

I don’t think the priestcraft argument holds though. I used to believe the BoM speaks against it as a firm principle, yet it’s not enforced except at the local level, as far as I’m aware, and it was “hidden” for decades that upper ranking people in the church get paid.

Do you think that excommunication of John would lessen people’s willingness to donate OR support the Mormon Stories concept through listenership?

[Anonymous]

“I don’t think the priestcraft argument holds though. I used to believe the BoM speaks against it as a firm principle, yet it’s not enforced except at the local level, as far as I’m aware, and it was “hidden” for decades that upper ranking people in the church get paid.” Just because the church also does it doesn’t mean that it’s not priestcraft.

But there is a key distinction. When you are an apostle, you aren’t beholden to your audience to pay your bills. The church pays you a modest (I stand by the word modest) stipend so you don’t have to worry about where the money is coming from, not to get you to stay on message. The apostles are allowed to argue with one another, and even at times to go off script (which we then poor suckers we are get to live with). But it’s not really the same as relying on your audience to pay your bills. Do this little thought experiment. If each of the Q12 had a donate button and lived off the donations, how would it shake out? Would they all make the same amount? Highly doubtful. The least polarizing / controversial guys probably would make the least money because they don’t have the same name recognition. They don’t put butts in seats. Maybe that thought experiment helps illustrate the difference.

I do believe John has been transparent that he’s covering expenses from his podcasts, but I am opposed (as a blogger) to mixing $ with religion because it changes how I seek truth and the things I say & do. Clicks are a form of compensation, to be sure, but at the end of the day, they don’t pay the bills.

[Anonymous]

From a discussion with a friend of mine about priestcraft:

Quote:

Two factors are at play here: one is the fact that by having a brand on the market that provides nearly all of your income you are financially beholden to those who support the brand. So the brand can’t shift according to evolving research and discourse that doesn’t support the brand. It has to stay aligned with user satisfaction as the only significant variable. The second thing is the cult of personality, which social media has made a million times worse. When anything you say, no matter how asinine, is met with the adoration and support of hundreds if not thousands of people, your self-reinforcement is total. You have no incentive to question anything you think, and can’t help but come to think of yourself as some kind of predestined hero of the masses. So even the good you might do cannot be distinguished from the bad; it’s all good, because it came from source of the Good, which is you.

To this point, I think he does a good job explaining the conflict of interest. After this, I think his argument shifts to the problem with brand domination. You can’t have a fountain drink machine without Coke or Pepsi represented or people won’t use it. John’s brand has grown to the point that it’s ubiquitous; it’s the main consumable in the industry of Mormon faith crises, regardless whatever progressive reform you seek. That type of dominance creates a cult of personality. Not intentional, just a natural byproduct.

Quote:

But of course if you want the Church to do better at treating gay people humanely as empowering women, etc, you simply must subscribe to Dehlin because he’s developed the now only acceptable brand and vehicle for making these happen and if you’re not with him you’re against him and therefore against freedom and equality and an apologist in intellectual’s clothing, not really committed to humanity but a shill of the Church, deluded into thinking you’re on the right side of history when you’re really just on the side of the status quo. But look if you get with the program and publicly declare your support for Mormon Stories and attend John’s vigil or post a link to the CES letter, etc, then you’ve given the secret password and can be considered an acceptable defector. So buy the right brand, praise the right man, and he’ll lead us all to glory. He just needs your financial support and unquestioning loyalty to help him do it. Mormon Stories is like the 21st century Church in a parallel dimension. They have their prophet, apostles, uniform message of salvation and enlightenment, and obedience to leaders.

Since MoSto’s brand is intrinsically “Mormon,” it’s similar to a Coke employee peddling a product called “Coke Sucks.” People start loving “Coke Sucks” and no longer liking “Coke.” So Coke probably has to fire that person. But “Coke Sucks” will still sell on its own merits or not. However, we’re probably not talking about Coke here. Depending on your view, maybe it’s Fanta, RC Cola, or YooHoo.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Dehlin because he’s developed the now only acceptable brand and vehicle for making these happen and if you’re not with him you’re against him and therefore against freedom and equality and an apologist in intellectual’s clothing,

For me this is a key factor in my distancing myself from his present process. A few weeks ago he listed on his face book page tons of bloggers, authors, etc. and called them apologists. And he carefully clarified that he was just using the dictionary definition. But when I read it, it felt more like he threw people, whom he had brought on to podcasts, under the bus. They were suddenly all as low as Daniel Peterson. In that one post, if it is representational of where he is, he really does think his answers are the only answers. That kind of broke my heart.

[Anonymous]

mom3:

Quote:

“They were suddenly all as low as Daniel Peterson”

Ouch. That is low indeed.

I’m not saying any of this to impugn John. I’m just saying caveat emptor, and that goes for everyone who is selling ideas, truth, wisdom, insight, whatever. Be aware of their biases and motivations and who pays the bills. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Since MoSto’s brand is intrinsically “Mormon,” it’s similar to a Coke employee peddling a product called “Coke Sucks.” People start loving “Coke Sucks” and no longer liking “Coke.” So Coke probably has to fire that person. But “Coke Sucks” will still sell on its own merits or not. However, we’re probably not talking about Coke here. Depending on your view, maybe it’s Fanta, RC Cola, or YooHoo.

I understand that Coke will fire that guy, but Coke has other legal recourses when the now-former employee keeps saying, “Coke sucks.” The church doesn’t have similar options – I assume? Nothing will stop John Dehlin from calling himself a Mormon, (or post-, ex-, cultural) and calling his product Mormon Stories. And Mormons are free to identify with those stories and support his efforts. Is the church going to go after everyone who contributes, “likes” it on Facebook, etc.? And when his followers become disillusioned and his star fades, there will be others.

And then there’s always the option to be done with the cola wars and drink something else. Maybe that’s a bigger deal than the disgruntled ex-employee. Why focus on him so very much? Why not wonder why so many people are tired of Coke?

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

If each of the Q12 had a donate button and lived off the donations, how would it shake out? Would they all make the same amount? Highly doubtful.

Everyone knows Uchtdorf would be kicking butt under that arrangement. And it does make your point – to a point. I think within the church there is also a pressure to take it a step beyond that drives towards conservatism/obsessive rule making.

[Anonymous]

Many years ago I read a book about orginizational behavior, I believe by David Gardner, but it’s title I forget at the moment. Anyway he said the last act of a dying organization is to produce a new rule book. I’m not saying the Church is dying, but it is very mature.

On another subject: If the PTB’s weren’t at least closely following John’s story, they would be guilty IMO of negligence because this story is making a martyr of him in many peoples eyes. It will only hurt their cause. IMO they should have gotten in front of this story and managed it better, if possible. I recall when Sterling McMurrin got in the crosshairs of the Church, Pres McKay told the stake leaders he would personally be a witness for McMurrin. The story never became a big deal

OTOH John telling the Church what their doctrine should be is totally out of line. He’s a bright guy who should know better.

[Anonymous]

Interesting piece on Mormon Stories by JD in response to Peggy Fletcher Stacks piece in the SLTrib. http://mormonstories.org/a-response-to-peggy-fletcher-stack-about-osf-finances/ In asking the question why did she print it and why did she print it now I recall a quote by William Randolph Hearst. “The duty of a newspaper is to raise hell and print the news.” It’s interesting that for me his prickly response has drawn more attention to the subject that the Trib article ever did. As my ex-wife, who is in the business, once said, “never get in a fight with a newspaper”. Words to live by.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Since MoSto’s brand is intrinsically “Mormon,” it’s similar to a Coke employee peddling a product called “Coke Sucks.” People start loving “Coke Sucks” and no longer liking “Coke.” So Coke probably has to fire that person. But “Coke Sucks” will still sell on its own merits or not. However, we’re probably not talking about Coke here. Depending on your view, maybe it’s Fanta, RC Cola, or YooHoo.

I understand that Coke will fire that guy, but Coke has other legal recourses when the now-former employee keeps saying, “Coke sucks.” The church doesn’t have similar options – I assume? Nothing will stop John Dehlin from calling himself a Mormon, (or post-, ex-, cultural) and calling his product Mormon Stories. And Mormons are free to identify with those stories and support his efforts. Is the church going to go after everyone who contributes, “likes” it on Facebook, etc.? And when his followers become disillusioned and his star fades, there will be others.

And then there’s always the option to be done with the cola wars and drink something else. Maybe that’s a bigger deal than the disgruntled ex-employee. Why focus on him so very much? Why not wonder why so many people are tired of Coke?

This goes to the heart of the matter. Is John’s work symbiotic or parasitic? The church honestly has no hold on him other than to excommunicate him or not. He hasn’t violated their intellectual property. Excommunication may reduce his ongoing relevance to new listeners because they often come to his site from within Mormonism, and Mormons will be less likely to listen in the first place. But the issues he has raised still exist – he didn’t create them.

[Anonymous]

dash1730 wrote:

On another subject: If the PTB’s weren’t at least closely following John’s story, they would be guilty IMO of negligence because this story is making a martyr of him in many peoples eyes. It will only hurt their cause. IMO they should have gotten in front of this story and managed it better, if possible. I recall when Sterling McMurrin got in the crosshairs of the Church, Pres McKay told the stake leaders he would personally be a witness for McMurrin. The story never became a big deal

Here is the story on David O McKay and why I think he would defend John Dehlin today:

As recorded on pages 55-56 in “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee were moving to excommunicate Sterling McMurrin for his unorthodox beliefs. When President McKay heard about it, he phoned McMurrin and asked for a private meeting. In that meeting, McKay was never critical nor disapproving. He told McMurrin: “They cannot do this to you! They cannot put you on trial!” and that if they did, he (the President of the Church) would be McMurrin’s “first witness”.

McMurrin said: “I should have been censured for being such a heretic, and here President McKay wasn’t even interested in raising a single question about my beliefs, but simply insisted that a man in this Church had a right to believe as he pleased. And he stressed that in several ways… It was really a quite remarkable experience, to have the President of the Church talking in such genuinely liberal terms.”

This increased my love and respect President McKay. Would that we could have more members like him today. Why should John Dehlin be treated any differently than Sterling McMurrin? McMurrin was especially critical (and publicly) of the Church’s civil rights record. He also didn’t believe the Book of Mormon was a historical record and based on my memory of an interview he did with Blake Ostler, McMurrin didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ.

Author Greg Prince later elaborated on that McKay/McMurrin experience on very early Mormon Stories podcast (episode 2, I believe). He said that during that same visit with Sterling McMurrin, President McKay asked a series of rhetorical questions such as “What is it that a man must believe to be a member of the church? Or what is it that a man is not allowed to believe to stay a member of the Church?”

He didn’t answer either question, but they’re good rhetorical questions. This was in 1954 when McMurrin told McKay that it looked like they were going to try to throw him out of the Church. McKay said that if they do “I will be the first witness in your defense”, and when word of this got out the excommunication charges were dropped. That’s some serious compassion from the President of the Church. And apparently he was as tolerant of those on the far conservative side as he was of those, like McMurrin, on the liberal side. Very cool example of pitching a big tent and welcoming everyone in.

[Author]

Posts