Gadianton wrote:Well, I think I had it wrong then. I thought John was a questioning member himself, and was trying to find a place within the Church for questioning. If I'm reading you right, JD is a fully believing member, and is trying to resolve concerns of those who have questions?
No, I don't think that's quite accurate. As Bill Hamblin said of him, "He doesn't even believe in God." As I recall, he told John Larsen that he was unsure about his beliefs concerning God. He definitely does not believe in the traditional, orthodox version of Church doctrine and history. In the interview with Larsen, he said, in essence, that he is a full-fledged member of the Church, save for one key aspect: he refuses to pay tithing, based on his belief that he should know how it's being spent.
So, I would say that he's a NOM.
Let me give you an example. Here's my own slant from either the missionary guide, Covey, or Ziggler, I can't remember. A car salesman of brand X, a car that has horrible consumer reviews and riddled with problems, is approached by a customer who tells him, "I've read that brand Y is much better then the car you're selling and I can get one across the street for the same price as this brand X crap you're selling."
The Mopologist car salesman would become red in the face and go toe-to-toe with the customer, making mechanical-related arguments above the customer's head, question the bias of the review, and even question the possibility of truth itself while blaming the customer for being stupid. His salesmen buddies will high-five him, and all will be strengthened, but the customer ain't going to buy anything. So this tactic is unsustainable. Further, it is also ineffective for the brand Y salesman to go this route with a customer who has read a factually untenable review of brand Y, even if the truth is on his side.
The way to handle the situation according to the motivational speaker is to skirt the matter of truth entirely. The proper response is, "You know, brand Y is a great car and I can understand why you're skeptical of brand X. But let me show you some great things about this car." A real possibility here is that the customer now happily drives away in a lemon. Is this salesman really that much better in a moral sense just because he's more effective at retaining a customer? Sure, we have to control for other activities such as the first salesman possibly making harassing phone calls to the customer or taking the fight to his workplace.
I agree that the latter approach is much more effective and superficially more appealing, but what I worry about a little is that sometimes the antics of the apologists become such a big issue, that wrong answers become OK when delivered from a gentleman because of the welcome contrast with less psychologically functional representatives. If good customer service becomes an end in itself, could this tacitly empower an organization with severe issues more than it should?
Of course, to make the discussion fair, I can't just assume the Church is false. But I don't want folks to forget that a major issue seems to be whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, whether there really is a Celestial Kingdom and so on. Then again, I could be wrong, perhaps all that doesn't matter as much as I think it does. But, I do think that we should be clear about our expectations and not be easily persuaded on the grounds of civility only.
I think the case that Dehlin is making is that Mormonism extends far beyond the Old School beliefs concerning history and doctrine, and he wants to help people to find ways in which they can continue to be a part of the Church (even if that means, like, not paying tithing, and not believing in certain traditionally orthodox tenets of the faith).
Dehlin really is just about helping to address people's pain in the process. He seems to be neutral on the issue of whether or not people should remain in the Church. It's more just about helping them through the "faith crisis," as it were.
Where the Mopologists come into play, as I see it, is that they either (a) just as you say, they give crappy answers, or else (b) the attack people for being NOM-ish or unorthdox. They just plain create a toxic atmosphere that is damagine for everyone involved.