John Dehlin: A Spy Story

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

ME,

What was your personal relationship with Mr. Dehlin again?

- Doc

Not related

What's not related? That was a weird, evasive answer.

- Doc

[_Kishkumen]

What's not related? That was a weird, evasive answer.

- Doc

Yes, ME doesn't want to get into the history about how he was really close to Dehlin, even breaking bread with Dehlin at Dehlin's house, etc., and then Dehlin betrayed that friendship. I think it does bear on the questions of why ME is participating in this thread and why he thinks spying on Dehlin is some kind of made-up joke.

From all that I have observed, I can understand why ME is pissed at Dehlin and I can understand why he does not like the "celebrities of Sunstone" phenomenon.

However, that subject is really different from what the thread is about. This thread is about the longstanding pattern of invading people's privacy as a matter of LDS Church policy and the methods of LDS apologetics. It goes way beyond John Dehlin, and thus lends credence to John's altogether reasonable claims.

Dislike Dehlin all you like. Compare him to the Kardashians, sure. Be my guest. But that is not what this thread is about.

[_Mayan Elephant]

By the same logic Kish, the Mark Hoffman story is not about Mark Hoffman.

The examples provided are comical conspiracies or taken completely out of context. The examples do not identify a problem when these examples are part of propoganda and a charade. It has nothing to do with my relationship or your perception of a vendetta.

Does a snitching form of monitoring exist? Indeed it does. Are there examples of betrayal or eccliastical abuse? Yep. Is John a victim of any of that? No. He is a narcissistic self-promotor and this is yet another example of his dishonest portrayal of his role in his own circus and business.

Conflating John Dehlin's clown version with the actual real life trespassing and spying is a huge disservice. And retelling John's story this way is just another re-writing like has been done to other histories, like Joseph Smith's for example.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This thread is about the longstanding pattern of invading people's privacy as a matter of LDS Church policy and the methods of LDS apologetics.

Absolutely, and I have to add I find it interesting Mr. Yahoo Bot has kept quiet regarding the limits of ethical information gathering.

Regarding ME, it's clear he has a hard-on for Dehlin, but I'm not sure why. I think it could give the board or even the ex-Mo community a better insight to Dehlin if ME would flesh out his history and subsequent position on this particular matter.

- Doc

[_Mayan Elephant]

Kish man, responding backwards here. Ill get to the other questions when i am on a pc and not a phone. Thanks man.

[_Kishkumen]

By the same logic Kish, the Mark Hoffman story is not about Mark Hoffman.

In a sense, that is true, however humorous you might find it.

The examples provided are comical conspiracies or taken completely out of context. The examples do not identify a problem when these examples are part of propoganda and a charade. It has nothing to do with my relationship or your perception of a vendetta.

And it will take more than mere assertion to demonstrate that what you are saying is true. Comical conspiracies? What conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. I am talking about the way the LDS Church operates according to its own policies and organs.

What need do you think there would be for a conspiracy?

No, you raise the idea of a conspiracy for your own rhetorical purposes. I see no conspiracy outside of your rhetoric.

Does a snitching form of monitoring exist? Indeed it does. Are there examples of betrayal or eccliastical abuse? Yep. Is John a victim of any of that? No. He is a narcissistic self-promotor and this is yet another example of his dishonest portrayal of his role in his own circus and business.

So, you'll go with "snitching form of monitoring." OK, I am fine with you seeing it that way. I see it as a Church collecting intelligence on its members in order to maintain control. Now, there are those who are fine with that, and I accept that they exist. They think it is fine for your EQP to stalk you, try to get into private discussion groups, or for the SCMC to collect a file on you, etc. They think it is fine that the Church calls your relatives to find out where you are, as if a semi-functional adult with a family had no ability to find a Mormon chapel without a Church finding service. Yes, there are those people who are cool with that and even like it.

I am not cool with it and I do not like it. John, even if he were a "Mormon Kardashian," is not fine with it either, and I agree with him. Being a Mormon celebrity does not make the Church's culture of snitching, monitoring, stalking, seeking out, or whatever, acceptable to me. I can separate my feelings about this culture of spying/snitching from my feelings about the Sunstone elite.

Conflating John Dehlin's clown version with the actual real life trespassing and spying is a huge disservice. And retelling John's story this way is just another re-writing like has been done to other histories, like Joseph Smith's for example.

Yes, well, I don't agree. Cyberstalking and cyberspying are still real problems, and I don't see that you have offered much aside from mere assertion and dislike of John Dehlin to back up your contention that he was neither stalked nor spied on.

In my view, you are here in this thread solely because John is in the topic. Had I used any other example, you wouldn't have said a word. I get that you have a lasting grudge against John Dehlin. You have proven that in spades. I grant that you believe you have good reasons, and I don't call into question your beliefs about that.

I accept that you feel John did you wrong.

But, I really don't think that has any bearing on the history of snitching, stalking, spying, etc., in the LDS Church. John's experience is consistent with that history, so I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what he is saying. If you have anything solider than your derision for John the Mormon celebrity and attention whore, then I am all ears.

[_Kishkumen]

Absolutely, and I have to add I find it interesting Mr. Yahoo Bot has kept quiet regarding the limits of ethical information gathering.

Regarding ME, it's clear he has a hard-on for Dehlin, but I'm not sure why. I think it could give the board or even the ex-Mo community a better insight to Dehlin if ME would flesh out his history and subsequent position on this particular matter.

- Doc

Well, Yahoo Bot thinks that the Church's methods for gathering information are entirely ethical. I have no reason to think that he does not. He recognizes that his views will receive very little sympathy here, so he probably won't waste his energy trying to put lipstick on that pig.

As far as ME goes, I dearly hope he does not recount his saga with John Dehlin. Let him link to it and let people read the old threads as they may. I am not denigrating ME or the seriousness of his feelings by saying this. I just don't want the thread to get derailed with the rehashing of that history.

[_Mayan Elephant]

don't worry Kish. The story is not being retold. Yowza.

For one, it ain't relevant. Two, if there is a story at all it is often just used as a Trump card to dismiss the lack of ass-kissing and ring-worshipping.

[_Kishkumen]

don't worry Kish. The story is not being retold. Yowza.

For one, it ain't relevant. Two, if there is a story at all it is often just used as a Trump card to dismiss the lack of ass-kissing and ring-worshipping.

Great to hear, ME. Whew! I figured that you would not want to rehash it.

That said, I would love to see the substantive criticisms you have of John Dehlin's claims in the quoted text at the beginning of the thread. Up to now, I haven't seen anything other than ad hominem and character assassination, so I am eager to see substance. You have intimated that John Dehlin was defaming Bishop Hunt and President King before he met with either man and found out that he was being investigated by them. Would you please provide your evidence?

Thanks.

[_fetchface]

One thing that comes to my mind is that John did record conversations secretly and without the consent of the other party. That deserves to be noted if we are going to look at this in a balanced way.