John Dehlin: A Spy Story

[_Kishkumen]

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.

When I see this kind of reaction to LDS activists, I can't help but wonder whether a kind of double standard is at work. People complain about the Brethren, but when push comes to shove, they tend to get a benefit of the doubt that activists do not. Activists need to have the purest of motives or the most unexceptionable faith in order to be acceptable, while in the case of the Brethren the question is either not raised or not considered all that important. Put a person in a position of power, and folks assume they have the right to call the shots. The little guy/gal has no right to question that.

Surprisingly, many ex-Mormons feel the same way. They are happy to leave the LDS Church, but they don't understand why a non-TBM might want to stay and raise a ruckus. At some level, people just find it rude, I think.

I have a dear friend, who will flip out if you push too far beyond his comfort zone. Then he'll accuse you of being irrational for having done so. All it takes is saying something that he simply can't accept. As soon as he blows up, the gig is up, whether he realizes it or not. It's not pleasant. But, we all have our flaws.

Maybe it's my fault for being impolite or provocative. Shouldn't I know these taboos and just keep quiet? What on earth possesses me to stir the hornet's nest? Sometimes I start to fool myself into thinking there is enough trust there and freedom of thought that I honestly forget that there actually isn't quite enough of either. When you get down to it, though, I should not feel ashamed because he can't restrain his anger in an exchange of ideas.

I am not thinking of you here, honor. But I think this story relates to the current discussion. There are lots of unspoken boundaries that people are very uncomfortable moving beyond--both faithful and ex-faithful. Those who step beyond those boundaries take a lot of crap from everyone. I can't help but think that it isn't so much that they are bad people, narcissists, or doing something inherently wrong. They do make people uncomfortable though, and that discomfort, even the subtle or sublimated varieties, sends people running for their comfort zones. Those comfort zones can be as simple as a familiar map of the unspoken order of things.

[_honorentheos]

Here's the deal. I think John Dehlin and Kate Kelly are narcissistic self-serving types that attached themselves to good causes. I think both the cause for LGBT acceptance and rights in the LDS church, and gender leadership equality in the LDS church were vehicles in their cases not outgrowths of something they genuinely believed in in a social justice kind of way.

When a heterosexual white guy in a traditional relationship who freaks out over married couples experimenting with swinging and runs back to an institution then attaches himself as the voice of a dissenting movement he has no business attaching himself to in that way because it isn't who he is, and practically asks his leadership to speak clearly into the button of his lapel and say the words, "You're being excommunicated for supporting same-sex marriage"...it's not about comfort zone. It's that he sets off a five-alarm "don't trust that guy" response. Conversely, I think Rock Waterman is a great example of someone who appears genuine and who was screwed over by the Church.

The two we've been disagreeing over just aren't good examples in my book because they don't seem authentic but were engaging in a power game with the Church. It's not some form of residual regard for not messing with the Church. It disregard for a particular form of self-aggrandizing narcissism. The vehicle for their come-to-Jesus moment is a technicality...because it was a technicality in the narrative of their "It's about me, because I believe in this other thing" story. If it wasn't the Church and OW or LGBT issues, it would have been something else over something else.

[_cwald]

Here's the deal. I think John Dehlin and Kate Kelly are narcissistic self-serving types that attached themselves to good causes. I think both the cause for LGBT acceptance and rights in the LDS church, and gender leadership equality in the LDS church were vehicles in their cases not outgrowths of something they genuinely believed in in a social justice kind of way.

When a heterosexual white guy in a traditional relationship who freaks out over married couples experimenting with swinging and runs back to an institution then attaches himself as the voice of a dissenting movement he has no business attaching himself to in that way because it isn't who he is, and practically asks his leadership to speak clearly into the button of his lapel and say the words, "You're being excommunicated for supporting same-sex marriage"...it's not about comfort zone. It's that he sets off a five-alarm "don't trust that guy" response. Conversely, I think Rock Waterman is a great example of someone who appears genuine and who was screwed over by the Church.

The two we've been disagreeing over just aren't good examples in my book because they don't seem authentic but were engaging in a power game with the Church. It's not some form of residual regard for not messing with the Church. It disregard for a particular form of self-aggrandizing narcissism. The vehicle for their come-to-Jesus moment is a technicality...because it was a technicality in the narrative of their "It's about me, because I believe in this other thing" story. If it wasn't the Church and OW or LGBT issues, it would have been something else over something else.

I understand what you are saying.

[_Kishkumen]

Yep. They were engaged in a power game with the Church. Ergo, they are inauthentic (according to the normative standard cultivated by the authorities) or vice versa. Because that's the way the tautology works. We like Rock Waterman because he was just blogging. He was a genuine believer who was just blogging. We love that kind of guy. We don't love the organizing types so much.

It never ceases to amaze me that John's flip-flopping and ineptness are attributed to some remarkable genius or deviousness on his part. Hey, I'd tape my interviews with the stake president too, if I were in a similar position. But, again, we think this guy Is a real snake in the grass for betraying the "privacy" of an agent of a corporation engaged in a closed door process to eject a member from his ancestral faith.

At a certain point, I have to wonder why everyone is so damned concerned about the taping, when the real concern should perhaps be the closed door process for ejecting members. I think I understand, though. Everyone who is/was in the system is more or less inured to the realities and sees two choices: submit or leave. The person who does something different will almost certainly take flak from all sides.

[_honorentheos]

Kishkumen, it would be really offensive of me to assert that your response is reassigned subordination behaviors learned in church combined with vendetta feelings caused by rejection from the institution you wish would evolve to be with you as you changed.

We're going to continue to disagree. Let's not destroy a friendship over it.

[_cwald]

Whatever their motives, I think they, along with many others I admit, helped expose the church as a fraud to many members, and forced the church to deal with some of the issues, and forced many members to consider some of the very serious and egregious behavior of the corporate church. I also give him credit for setting up MS communities to members who needed a community at the time.

Can we at least agree that John did what I, and most of the rest of us here, could never do...get the church's attention?

And who cares what his motives were really? The LDS corporation is a fraud that needed/needs to be exposed sooner rather than later to stop the harm they are perpetuating on humanity. I'll be an "ite" of all who work towards that end.

I think Dehlin started out with a sincere desire to reform the church and wanted to help struggling members. However, I can understand why Honor would make those comments about his LGBT activism. Most of my Dehliniteism, as ME would accuse me of, comes from associations with MS prior to 2010. That was well before all the gay activism really started. I don't really have an opinion about that aspect of it, but can certainly understand where Honor is coming from.

[_cwald]

...vendetta feelings caused by rejection from the institution you wish would evolve to be with you as you changed.

Yeah. This was not said to me, but I certainly recognize this happening in my associations. The church failed me. The church failed most of here on this board.

And it hurts and really pisses me off some days.

[_sunstoned]

...vendetta feelings caused by rejection from the institution you wish would evolve to be with you as you changed.

Yeah. This was not said to me, but I certainly recognize this happening in my associations. The church failed me. The church failed most of here on this board.

And it hurts and really pisses me off some days.

This resonates with me on several levels. I feel betrayed by the church. They knowingly lied and continue to lie. It has been ten years since I left, and I am still pissed off.

[_Mayan Elephant]

Whatever their motives, I think they, along with many others I admit, helped expose the church as a fraud to many members, and forced the church to deal with some of the issues, and forced many members to consider some of the very serious and egregious behavior of the corporate church. I also give him credit for setting up MS communities to members who needed a community at the time.

Can we at least agree that John did what I, and most of the rest of us here, could never do...get the church's attention?

And who cares what his motives were really? The LDS corporation is a fraud that needed/needs to be exposed sooner rather than later to stop the harm they are perpetuating on humanity. I'll be an "ite" of all who work towards that end.

I think Dehlin started out with a sincere desire to reform the church and wanted to help struggling members. However, I can understand why Honor would make those comments about his LGBT activism. Most of my Dehliniteism, as ME would accuse me of, comes from associations with MS prior to 2010. That was well before all the gay activism really started. I don't really have an opinion about that aspect of it, but can certainly understand where Honor is coming from.

dehlin did not expose the church as a fraud. he exposed himself as a fraud. he got the church's attention for his nefarious behavior, not for any other reason. and that is why his retelling of history, where he is rhe victim, is so ridiculous.

john did not create any changes within the church or the membership. he attached himself to changes that were already well under way, and became a public nuisance to all sides.

[_Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, it would be really offensive of me to assert that your response is reassigned subordination behaviors learned in church combined with vendetta feelings caused by rejection from the institution you wish would evolve to be with you as you changed.

We're going to continue to disagree. Let's not destroy a friendship over it.

First of all, I can handle it, so long as you are generally civil and not simply aiming at insulting me. I am happy to entertain the possibility. I should entertain the possibility. If I did not, I would not be examining myself fully in this situation.

I take exception to people thrashing about incoherently and lashing out in blind anger. And, again, I am certainly not referring to you here. What's the benefit in that? I want to understand myself. I want to understand all of us. I want to understand our interaction with the LDS Church.

I am not accusing you, honor. Ultimately, I can't fathom the truth of the situation. We all have our human limitations. I got exactly the same gut reactions you did. You may have seen me discussing that here on MDB. I can't recall.

Sometimes, however, I want to push back and ask myself if I was not perhaps motivated by the very subordination behaviors you are referring to. I am interested here in how we react in this situation, and I did not write any of that to insult you. I place myself in the same hot seat.

In any case, I apologize for inadvertently insulting you. I was looking for an opportunity to explore the possibility that my negative feelings about celebrity activists were exactly what you more eloquently described.