Problematic John Dehlin, a short list

[jpatterson]

But please understand, there is a huge world out there beyond Dehhlin and whatever sect he leads. He is completely irrelevant to literally 99% of the world.

There's a huge world out there beyond Mormonism, which is completely irrelevant to 99% of the world, yet here you are talking about it. It's all relative.

So what exactly is your point?

[Meadowchik]

No. Just no.

Just have to say

WILSON!!!!

I love that movie so much. It is such a gentle and raw approach, in my opinion, to picturing meaning and thought and how we need it as human beings. I like to compare Wilson to God. Like Chuck needed someone in the big wide universe to talk to and hear his thoughts, so do we.

[Jersey Girl]

No. Just no.

Just have to say

WILSON!!!!

I love that movie so much. It is such a gentle and raw approach, in my opinion, to picturing meaning and thought and how we need it as human beings. I like to compare Wilson to God. Like Chuck, needed someone in the big wide universe to talk to and hear his thoughts, so do we.

It's my Covid lock down symbol.

[Meadowchik]

I’m interested in identifying cult-like thinking and then behavior. What we’re witnessing, much like with the Snufferites, is a nascent spiritual movement. So, of course I’m interested in watching the follies and foibles of a wannabe public persona earning a living by the temple. It’s really no different when a preachy politician, sports figure, or, uh, preacher is inevitably exposed as a greasy hypocrite - it’s the infinite recursion of human fallibility. It’d be nice if more people were actually decent like an Obama, or John Wooden, or Jimmy Carter, but they’re not. And it should be pointed out before they become a Smith or Trump.

- Doc

Can you imagine if our only options were to leave one high-demand religion for another, or if we could only go from one cult to another? Yikes. I think that probably for most of human history it was like that. I'm so glad we have more options now.

But specifically, whatever they are or become, the loci of ex-Mormon discourse are there and will continue to be there as members leave. Patterns we continue might not make a cult, but can still be unhealthy. Being aware of them is a step towards a better being.

[Lem]

Very eloquently said, thank you.

I would only add that now, Mormon Stories may be a visible stone, but am I correct in my assessment that Mormon Stories started around 2005 or so? I left the LDS church more than 15 years before that, and lived in an area away from my LDS family members. I only vaguely know what Mormon Stories is from threads here. The subsequent stones I found that moved me away from the LDS church didn’t involve Dehlin or anyone like him, but I can certainly see how his influence may have grown as he established himself.

Yes, 2005 is Wiki-confirmed. I definitely was not plugged into Mormon Stories then. I left at the end of 2016-early 2017.

I impressed with you and others who managed to "cross the river" without the relative abundance of tools which became available more recently.

Thank you. In my case I just had to put my head down and power through. I was alone and in graduate school in a very male dominant field, after being raised in an extremely patriarchal environment. I just knew that I had to do what I thought was right even though for many, many years, I had no one, and I mean NO ONE, in my life who supported me in that. Gradually, I was able to find a different way of living, and also a different group of people to live that life with. Sometimes I look back and think— how on earth did I make that transition??? It just doesn’t seem doable now, but back then, I think I didn’t realize how hard it would be and how long the pain would go on, so I just kept going.

[Meadowchik]

Thank you. In my case I just had to put my head down and power through. I was alone and in graduate school in a very male dominant field, after being raised in an extremely patriarchal environment. I just knew that I had to do what I thought was right even though for many, many years, I had no one, and I mean NO ONE, in my life who supported me in that. Gradually, I was able to find a different way of living, and also a different group of people to live that life with. Sometimes I look back and think— how on earth did I make that transition??? It just doesn’t seem doable now, but back then, I think I didn’t realize how hard it would be and how long the pain would go on, so I just kept going.

I cannot imagine.

For you, did you go from very believing to disenchantment, or was it that the misgivings always there were finally given space when you were in school? Or something else?

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

I don't have a major beef with you, I'm just pointing out the incongruency of your position, content warning or not.

It's kind of like someone starting an insult off with "I'm not trying to be rude, but..." and then being surprised that you found their comment rude. In the same family of caveats like "I'm not racist but..." and "I respect women but..."

It reminds me of the sympathy vs. empathy explanation given by Brene Brown. Sympathy is designed to make you feel better about yourself. Real empathy is when, without reservation, you focus on the emotional needs of the other person. What you said may have been sympathetic, but it wasn't very empathetic.

That only makes any sense if you think that not being able to fathom someone's interpretation of something automatically equates to a lack empathy. Prior to my post that included the content warning, I was rude. I worded my thoughts in ways that were dismissive of NoManisMyBishop's humanity. I'd forgotten she's a real person and not a character in some TV show.

I'm sorry I did that.

But having empathy doesn't mean validating someone's interpretation of things. Even with close personal friends, or my partner, sometimes I (or they) will say, I really think you're misreading this situation and here's why.

The way you're conflating empathizing with someone and validating their information/perspective/worldview is just really strange to me. AND you're conflating the sincerity of an apology with validating the person's information/perspective/worldview. Which I don't even know how to respond to. It doesn't seem very healthy to me.

The question now becomes, or I think it should become, one of consent. With my friends and my partner, we're in personal relationships of mutual consent. I've....sort of....gathered that NoManIsMyBishop and Chelovek gave permission for the letter to be posted and for the ensuing public discussion to happen.....right?

I would really like to have it confirmed whether they did, just because I think leaving this thread on the board at all if they did not consent....now, that's creepy! Especially since the botched letter redaction provided their real identities in the very first post.

But, if they did consent, then they can't expect that everyone is going to have the same take on it, or is going to have a take on it that they like. That's why I put the content warning on there, pending confirmation of their consent.

I'm still no less sorry that I spoke in rude ways about NoManisMyBishop.

I can't wrap my head around her interpretation of those Facebook likes. But I CAN try to choose my words with care and compassion and remember that all the people we're talking about on here are actual people, not fictional characters.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Regarding confirmation of consent, on page 32 of the thread, Chelovek did refer back to the Google Doc we all have access to as a valid source:

<snip>

It's not an explicit confirmation, but it may be inferred.

Well, that's a strangely evasive answer from the person who started this thread. I have kind of inferred their consent, but you shouldn't have to infer anything. Did you or did you not obtain their explicit consent to make this public, including their real names?

I continue to find your comments about her Facebook page perplexing. I never saw her address the Mormon Stories confrontation on her personal Facebook page. And, despite what you say in a previous post--that her privacy settings have changed as of yesterday or something along those lines--I haven't noticed a change. Her posts are a mix of public and private, public posts being less common, and family, personal photos and information typically being set to private.

It still sounds to me like you were getting your information elsewhere.

I was on her personal Facebook page, and I was on the Mormon Stories Facebook page. Those are the only two sources, other than your poorly redacted letter.

Most or all of the posts on Mormon Stories Facebook were screenshots. I think (I wouldn't swear to this, but if I recall correctly) some of those screenshots open up to the comments, etc. on her personal Facebook. I kept clicking on the screenshots and it seemed like I kept winding up back on her personal Facebook page.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with this point, except that you keep trying to make me out to be a liar about it. Think what you want; I don't care. I do care that if NoManIsMyBishop believes her profile and posts about this are private that they may not be.

And since someone so helpfully provided us with their real names from the start, she ought to have some control over that part, don't you think?

[Meadowchik]

Well, that's a strangely evasive answer from the person who started this thread. I have kind of inferred their consent, but you shouldn't have to infer anything. Did you or did you not obtain their explicit consent to make this public, including their real names?

Not evasive at all. I was not answering a question asked of me. You were asking them to confirm that they had consented.

To your direct question, of course I obtained explicit consent, including obtaining approval for my post introducing her story and sharing the Google Doc in full. Redacting their names was my choice, which was also agreed upon.

If Shades (board owner/admin) wants me to verify, I am happy to do so in DMs.

[Meadowchik]

I don't know why you are so obsessed with this point,

You can be concerned about whether I had consent to share, and I can be concerned about whether you had consent to share. See how that works?

...that you keep trying to make me out to be a liar about it.

Me asking you to clarify your source and to provide a link to what you say is publicly available is *not* calling you a liar.