John Dehlin: A Spy Story

[_Runtu]

And, this thread wasn't about me asking you to do so.

I know. I just find it ironic that my friends are arguing about something that has so little interest for me. Carry on.

[_Kishkumen]

I know. I just find it ironic that my friends are arguing about something that has so little interest for me. Carry on.

Ironic in what sense? I guess I am not seeing the irony.

[_Mayan Elephant]

For some reason, I am unable to muster any s***s to give about Dehlin.

And, this thread wasn't about me asking you to do so.

Damn dude. Jesus.

"This thread is about" a lot of things. We aren't students in a controled environment for chrissakes. If you can't handle a public conversation with the community's diversity, don't initiate a public conversation.

Or just say lol or something.

Runtu, i wasn't asking you to give a crap. LOL.

Or,

Runtu doesn't know what this thread is about, bless his heart.

[_Runtu]

Damn dude. Jesus.

"This thread is about" a lot of things. We aren't students in a controled environment for chrissakes. If you can't handle a public conversation with the community's diversity, don't initiate a public conversation.

Or just say lol or something.

Runtu, i wasn't asking you to give a s***. LOL.

Or,

Runtu doesn't know what this thread is about, bless his heart.

Either of those would be accurate. I should have stayed out of it.

[_Kishkumen]

The OP was about spying and snitching in the LDS Church. A number of people made interesting contributions in that vein. I appreciate them doing so.

[_Runtu]

I should have read the thread before opening my mouth. Apologies to all.

[_Mayan Elephant]

The OP was about spying and snitching in the LDS Church. A number of people made interesting contributions in that vein. I appreciate them doing so.

The OP was also about dehlin's testimony or account of his experience. As was the title. I agree, many contributions have been made regarding the OP and snitching, including how the OP ties into social and institutional control. See Kish, we can agree!


The intent of the OP may not have been to provide factual support of the innocent victim being kangaroo courted, but that was an inevitable topic when accusations were made of people or an institution.

[_Lemmie]

The OP was about spying and snitching in the LDS Church. A number of people made interesting contributions in that vein. I appreciate them doing so.

That's what I thought the topic was. I'm quite interested in getting back to that, is that possible?

[_honorentheos]

I disagree that how a person/organization behaves in extremis is more informative of who they are than how they behave in normal circumstances. It helps to see people in extremis to know our basic instincts are what they are for very good evolutionary reasons and civilization is meant to bridle them. But that's not particularly relevant as I think the majority of your post is pointing out a fact about any organization. Every group has some form of boundary definition and engages in boundary maintenance. The chilling effect, as we may call it, is kinda the point. Maybe that's a Machiavellian way to see the world, but it's basically true. One doesn't have to look too far to see it occurring anywhere two or three are gathered together in the name of something. or whatever.

There's the rub. The forms of that boundary definition vary from group to group, and moreso when dealing with the extreme than not. That's why how a particular group deals with an extreme situation--the form that it takes then--is so defining and distinguishing it from other groups.

I'm not sure that's true. What I might agree with is that the degree of tension leading to separation between group and individual differs and more tolerant groups can accept a higher degree of tension without forcing separation. But is it really uncommon for a group to excise an outlying member who moves to an extreme position in relation to the group? I don't think so. Now, if we were to discuss how easily tension occurs and how less extreme examples find themselves being dealt with in similar ways as the extreme ones (say, using JD and cwald as parallel examples brought up in this thread) I think we're discussing an issue with the LDS Church that gets back to the legitimate questions of how it sponsors subversive behavior such as spying as part of it's culture, whether directly or merely creates a culture where there is reward for doing so. But it's the less extreme examples that make this dynamic more suspect and appear cult-like, if you will, than the extreme ones.

[_honorentheos]

...they did what they did at least partially out of their sense that they valued their LDS identity and cared about the future of the LDS Church and its people. They placed a lot on the line to pursue what they did, and they paid an emotionally devastating price for it.

Do I canonize them as saints or see them as innocent victims? No. Do I sympathize with the good intentions they had and the price they paid for acting on them? I sure do.

Ok. I don't have access to their motives, but I am going with my BS detector in both cases. We'll just have to disagree on this one and move on.