John Dehlin: Initial Criticisms and Impressions Part I

[_Droopy]

A website dedicated to open discussion and validating diverse individuals is a terrible place to come to terms with the founder's overall philosophy.

Are you here claiming that Dehlin's website and his various podcasts, in which he interviews (such as the McLay interview) doubting and exiting LDS members are strictly relativistic and philosophically neutral in their approach?

If you're just talking about what Dehlin himself has actually said, that's fair game, although in his role of interviewer he has said all sorts of things that don't actually represent his personal positions, because that's what an interviewer does.

Thanks for the mind reading act, but I haven't been to a carnival in quite some time.

If you want to take stock of Dehlin's motives and philosophy, just go with what he's said about them. It's not like he's been shy about announcing where he's coming from. His motives have changed significantly between when he started the project and now, and they will probably change again.

I have, which is way much of my original OP and post was a critique of his own mission statement.

[_Droopy]

Droopy,
Your posts are SO long that very few will read them. Why not break them down into short, concise points that may encourage discussion?

Also....breaking your whole Dehlin discussion into part I, part II, and part III? Really?

Is your goal to discourage people on here from reading what you post?

I'm not on here that much, but your style is at least a source of entertainment for me (especially your many exits and re-entrances).

I seem to be damned here one way or another. I was asked to break the posts up into separate posts, because the original was too long.

Try Dick and Jane at the Seashore if the brevity you find there is more to your liking.

[_Droopy]

The Mormonstories website follows this general pattern. What will emerge from this is, as we will se, is a clear and broad based bias toward:

sansfoy's translation: This is the pattern of the stories posted to the site:

I do see a pattern, yes.

1. Exit from the Church as the answer to crisis of faith or personal behavioral/psychological attributes found to be incompatible with church membership and standards.

sansfoy's translation: When members suffer a crisis of faith, they are encouraged not to leave the church. (I think. The writing is so flowery here I had to read this sentence several times.)

I know. The overly common Jr. high school level intellectual processing of complex or more than Dick and Janeish prose causes unending difficulty in this forum.

However, I don't think your understanding here is correct. I've been clear, on several occasions, that Dehlin encourages apostatizing members to continue in that process if that is their desire. He also encourages others who wish to stay in the church, in a technical sense, but who do not accept any number of its central truth claims, to stay as well. What I do not see him doing is encouraging or facilitating conversion to and acceptance of those truth claims. But then, of course, that would make him something of an apologist, which is clearly not a part of his project.

2. Support for remaining within the Church, but only as a "cultural" Mormon with attachment to certain internal values and cultural elements of LDS society, but without faith or acceptance in its core religious truth claims.

sansfoy's translation: However, Mormonstories supports nominal membership only, encouraging cultural affinity, but denying the truth claims of the church. (That one was closer to English and easier to translate.)

I think that's essentially correct.

3. Strong support for and defense of various ideological, political, and philosophical claims within the surrounding secular world that are incompatible with those truth claims, and with the body of the teachings and standards of the Church.

sansfoy's translation: Mormonstories encourages a skeptical approach to the truth claims of the gospel that is incompatible with the church's core theology and standards.

True, but to be clearer, it encourages not just skepticism, but is neutral or supportive of personal philosophical/ideological commitments that are, at least as organized, coherent views, out of harmony with gospel teachings and, therefore, not only productive of skepticism, but a generator of cognitive dissonance and internal conflicts that must be resolved, one way or another.

If so, then yes, I agree with your three statements. That seems to be what Mormonstories is about. Boiled to its essence: stay Mormon but throw out anything you don't like.

Stay or leave, would be more accurate, but either way, you won't get any argument from Mr. Dehlin, so long as you don't say, "Stay and be faithful to Church teachings."

[_sansfoy]

1. Exit from the Church as the answer to crisis of faith or personal behavioral/psychological attributes found to be incompatible with church membership and standards.

sansfoy's translation: When members suffer a crisis of faith, they are encouraged not to leave the church. (I think. The writing is so flowery here I had to read this sentence several times.)

I know. The overly common Jr. high school level intellectual processing of complex or more than Dick and Janeish prose causes unending difficulty in this forum.

However, I don't think your understanding here is correct. I've been clear, on several occasions, that Dehlin encourages apostatizing members to continue in that process if that is their desire. He also encourages others who wish to stay in the church, in a technical sense, but who do not accept any number of its central truth claims, to stay as well. What I do not see him doing is encouraging or facilitating conversion to and acceptance of those truth claims. But then, of course, that would make him something of an apologist, which is clearly not a part of his project.

Droopy, I'm a professional writer. The only other income I earn is from my work as a literary agent where I have read tens of thousands of queries from people seeking my professional attention. Believe me when I say that the problem here is not the reading comprehension of your audience.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, I'm a professional writer. The only other income I earn is from my work as a literary agent where I have read tens of thousands of queries from people seeking my professional attention. Believe me when I say that the problem here is not the reading comprehension of your audience.

Kiss off (that's the PG rated version).

[_sansfoy]

Droopy, I'm a professional writer. The only other income I earn is from my work as a literary agent where I have read tens of thousands of queries from people seeking my professional attention. Believe me when I say that the problem here is not the reading comprehension of your audience.

Kiss off.

Hey, that's an improvement. See how much better it is to write with clarity?

[_sansfoy]

Kiss off (that's the PG rated version).

Darn, there you go again, larding up your prose. Sometimes less is more.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Droopy is just jealous.

While I don't agree with it, John Dehlin's work has helped a fair number of member remain in the LDS church.

Droopy cannot do that, not even in his own home.

I'd venture to say Droopy has probably helped more people defect than remain inside the LDS church.

Show us your retention numbers Loran.

[_Cylon]

A website dedicated to open discussion and validating diverse individuals is a terrible place to come to terms with the founder's overall philosophy.

Are you here claiming that Dehlin's website and his various podcasts, in which he interviews (such as the McLay interview) doubting and exiting LDS members are strictly relativistic and philosophically neutral in their approach?

No, I'm not claiming they're neutral, just that he has all sorts of people on his podcasts, so just because someone on his website or podcast says something that doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with it. Yes, he had the McLays on his podcast, and they definitely weren't neutral, but he also had Richard Bushman and Daniel Peterson on as well. They weren't neutral either, but I doubt you would argue that having them on meant Dehlin agreed with everything they said.

If you're just talking about what Dehlin himself has actually said, that's fair game, although in his role of interviewer he has said all sorts of things that don't actually represent his personal positions, because that's what an interviewer does.

Thanks for the mind reading act, but I haven't been to a carnival in quite some time.

Oh, come on, have you even listened to any of his interviews? He frequently says "I'm going to play devil's advocate here," or he'll grill an apologist with critical objections on an issue, and then turn around on the next interview and grill a critic with the apologetic argument on the exact same issue. He may not do both with the same conviction, but it doesn't require mind reading to know that he doesn't mean every single word he says.

If you want to take stock of Dehlin's motives and philosophy, just go with what he's said about them. It's not like he's been shy about announcing where he's coming from. His motives have changed significantly between when he started the project and now, and they will probably change again.

I have, which is way much of my original OP and post was a critique of his own mission statement.

The mission statement is definitely fair game. What I don't think is fair game is using what others have said in the forums Dehlin has provided as evidence of what he thinks, a la Greg Smith's hit piece on Laura Compton holding her personally accountable for random internet commenters. But it seems like that's not what you're going for here, so I may have misunderstood a bit of your OP.

[_Jason Bourne]

As usual, I notice that not one,single response to the OP had the slightest thing to do with any specific point, observation, or argument I made in that OP. Sockpuppet came the closest, the even there, all he was really doing was passing more anti-Mormon gas.

As far as Jason is concerned, yes, John Dehlin's website - the one entirely dedicated to his beliefs and project of providing a therapeutic/support group type setting for cultural Mormons and those on their way out of the Church - is an excellent place to learn about and come to terms with his overall philosophy.

Where else would you propose one go to take stock of Dehlin's motives and underlying philosophy?

You really need to ask where else? I said before:

Please list the last five MS podcasts you have listened to. Also please tell us about one MS Conference you have attended. Last of all please outline the objections you have from any one of Dehlin's personal talks over the past year.

If you can not to do the above why do we, or anyone really, care what you say about this? You cannot make the analysis you want to make from simply reading the MS web page.

Since you have not done so I see you are simply blowing smoke. Nothing to see here. Move along.