Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Nevo]

Where should struggling members go?
Keeping in mind Bishops don't have the answers and GA's are aloof from contact from members.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that most Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the answers. And I don't think most General Authorities do either.

It's a conundrum. Personally, I would prefer they all went to Kevin Barney. Or someone like him. A wise, deep person. Someone thoughtful, spiritually mature. Someone who knows "where all the bodies are buried" (Barney's words) yet who has managed to find a workable solution.

[_Chap]

Where should struggling members go?
Keeping in mind Bishops don't have the answers and GA's are aloof from contact from members.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that most Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the answers. And I don't think most General Authorities do either.

It's a conundrum. Personally, I would prefer they all went to Kevin Barney. Or someone like him. A wise, deep person. Someone thoughtful, spiritually mature. Someone who knows "where all the bodies are buried" (Barney's words) yet who has managed to find a workable solution.

So it seems that we can say of the LDS church that there are questions about its fundamental factual claims (such as the events in the Book of Mormon actually having taken place) to which (per Nevo) neither most local leaders nor most of the top leadership have any answers, and which if a member asks them and fails to find satisfactory answers, are likely to lead them to call in doubt their church membership.

A church in that situation has serious problems about its capacity to function as an organization in which people with any disposition to thinking for themselves can remain members. But maybe the leadership is happy not to retain such people?

[_Corpsegrinder]

Personally, I would prefer they all went to Kevin Barney. Or someone like him. A wise, deep person. Someone thoughtful, spiritually mature. Someone who knows "where all the bodies are buried" (Barney's words) yet who has managed to find a workable solution.

Nevo, would you be so kind as to post a link to where Kevin Barney talks about having a "workable solution" in spite of knowing "where all the bodies are buried"?

[_Willy Law]

But I disagree with his stated aim of "help[ing] struggling Mormons find peace during tough transitions," which effectively means—in nearly all cases—facilitating doubting Mormons' exit from the Church.

Funny how apologists see JD as leading the flock to exit the church, while most exmos see JD as trying to keep non believers in the church.

What is my ultimate wish for how this will all turn out? Personally, I would prefer to see John Dehlin to stay in the Church and work through his faith crisis privately,

I can't imagine all those who went through a faith crisis before the internet and the support communities out there. People must have felt so isolated to have gone through these things "privately". That the goal of apologists and the church is for individuals to deal with these issues in isolation and pain is abhorrent.

[_Corpsegrinder]

I can't imagine all those who went through a faith crisis before the internet and the support communities out there. People must have felt so isolated to have gone through these things "privately". That the goal of apologists and the church is for individuals to deal with these issues in isolation and pain is abhorrent.

+1

[_Kishkumen]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that most Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the answers. And I don't think most General Authorities do either.

I don't think it's all about having the "answers," but you are right that these guys generally don't have them.

It's a conundrum. Personally, I would prefer they all went to Kevin Barney. Or someone like him. A wise, deep person. Someone thoughtful, spiritually mature. Someone who knows "where all the bodies are buried" (Barney's words) yet who has managed to find a workable solution.

If only that were a sufficient solution. It is too bad that people see this in personal terms, such that it seems to make sense to offer Kevin Barney as an alternative to John Dehlin, when the real issue is structural and organizational. Regardless of your negative feelings about John Dehlin, the has pursued finding an approach that is about more than having the "answers," "knowing where the bodies are buried," and "being a wise, deep, person."

If we could clone Kevin Barney, you might have something. But the problem requires much more than Kevin to step of to the plate and exercise some real leadership at FAIR that would change the culture of the organization and stop the attacks--which, as cool as he is (and I heartily agree with that), he has as yet not done, for whatever reasons.

Why do people seek out John Dehlin? Partly for the reason that you don't like, because he is closer to where they are at, and they trust him as someone who understands them. What they get from FAIR/NMI, etc. is attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb. The trust has been violated, and the people who did the damage appear to have the institutional support of the LDS Church, no matter how many times they claim they are independent or what have you.

If you want people to trust the Church, then the Church will have to do something to win that trust back. FAIR and NMI have done too much damage to these people for you to expect them to trust those organizations. Furthermore, it is not what they really excel at, or are equipped to do. So yes, I agree that Kevin Barney is a wonderful person, and that he would be a great person to go to, but he's probably going to have to do something outside of FAIR that shows real leadership in the right way before anyone is going to listen.

He has my support if he should choose to step up to the plate.

[_RockSlider]

I can't imagine all those who went through a faith crisis before the internet and the support communities out there. People must have felt so isolated to have gone through these things "privately". That the goal of apologists and the church is for individuals to deal with these issues in isolation and pain is abhorrent.

an experienced +2

edit:

also that "less active" title assigned to some of us by the church sure has turned out to be a double edged sword!

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't dislike John Dehlin. I've never met him but I think he comes across as a likable enough fellow. But I disagree with his stated aim of "help[ing] struggling Mormons find peace during tough transitions," which effectively means—in nearly all cases—facilitating doubting Mormons' exit from the Church.

How do you figure? He has people on this podcasts like Bushman, Givens, and Quinn, and all of them shared stories on how they overcame various obstacles--how they were able to maintain their faith. And on what grounds are you objecting to people ultimately choosing to exit the Church? Shouldn't they have free agency to do either? Dehlin, per his own comments, seems to be neutral on this question. I guess you're not, and you believe that greater emphasis should be placed on trying to talk people into staying?

I don't think Dehlin is a competent guide in such matters. And, ultimately, I think he has probably done more to enlarge the ranks of the disaffected than Palmer or Brodie ever managed.

It's unclear why you think this. Is this just speculation?

What is my ultimate wish for how this will all turn out? Personally, I would prefer to see John Dehlin to stay in the Church and work through his faith crisis privately, rather than exporting his confusion to the masses and in the process becoming the self-appointed leader/advocate/spokesman of a constituency of disaffected/marginalized Mormons.

This sounds like sweeping the problems under the rug. If, as you suggested, Kevin Barney or someone like him were to take up Dehlin's self-appointed task, would you want him to do it openly, via a podcast or some medium like that? Or, as you seem to be saying here, would you prefer for this to take place "privately," in closed-door meetings where doubting members talk one-on-one with apologists?

I sort of suspect that, apart from his reach, the apologists resent Dehlin because he is actually having an open dialogue about these issues. I think that most Mopologists would prefer to do this sort of thing in one-on-one meetings, mainly because it is easier to control the situation in that circumstance.

[_Eric]

You're threatening, blackmailing, and defaming, and I don't appreciate it.

I also don't have time for it, and I'm definitely not in the mood: My older brother, my only sibling and only remaining connection to my parents, died suddenly on Friday. I'm at Harvard to give a lecture tonight and will be in California later in the week for my brother's funeral.

Coincidentally, I had to contact the Orem police yesterday -- and not for the first time -- about threats of violence from an unhinged former Mormon in California.

I don't find what you're attempting here even remotely acceptable.

If you cared at all about my good will, you chose a very bad approach. And your timing couldn't possibly have been worse.

-dcp

Dang. During a trying time involving a sibling, being criticized for something you've written and having said item forwarded to others must sure be uncomfortable. Being tattled on, if you will.

I wouldn't know how that feels. Threats, blackmail, defamation, horrible timing -- good to know that DCP doesn't find such things "remotely acceptable" in some circumstances.

[_Nevo]

Funny how apologists see JD as leading the flock to exit the church, while most exmos see JD as trying to keep non believers in the church.

Well noted. Let's just say that I find JD's ministrations more likely to confirm and deepen people's doubts than assuage them.

I can't imagine all those who went through a faith crisis before the internet and the support communities out there. People must have felt so isolated to have gone through these things "privately". That the goal of apologists and the church is for individuals to deal with these issues in isolation and pain is abhorrent.

Two things. First, I don't speak for "apologists" or "the church." Second, by "privately" I don't mean alone ("in isolation and pain"). I mean not in public (i.e., not via a podcast, blog, etc.). I'm not convinced that the "Oprahfication" of American culture—public confession as a form of therapy—is a particularly good thing. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.