Who is Dehlin's Target?

[_static]

"One of them"? You're going to have to cite specific text here. Where does he say this, and how is it used rhetorically to "lead members down a particular path"? For this to be true, you'd have to demonstrate that he's trying to persuade people to do and believe as he does. So let's see the evidence.

Are you suggesting that JD does not claim to be LDS?

[_Simon Southerton]

The reason it is my opinion that JD is leading members down a particular path is because, like many, he claims to "be one of them" when, in fact, he believes very little of the truth claims of the church (if any).
[/color]

John's objective is not to lead people out of the church. His primary objective is to stop people and families being harmed by the actions of the church or its spokesmen and he won't be distracted from that goal by snivelling apologists questioning his motives. He loves the people more than the organization.

John is trying to stop the damage and pain that apologists are causing in the lives of members who turn to them with sincere doubts. He has witnessed people being brutalized by apologists on their discussion boards. You can see it happening right now on the MD&D board. John has also seen first hand the damage that reparative therapy is causing in the lives of homosexual Mormons. The church has always supported reparative therapy (Dean A Byrd and Evergreen goons) and shunned the more compassionate approach championed by Bill Bradshaw (BYU). Bill is a respected scientist, has a gay son and understands the strong genetic and biological basis of same sex attraction better than most.

[_RayAgostini]

Since I've already broken my vow of silence with regard to this board, let me say this: Ray, I would be thrilled if you returned to activity in the Church just as you are. "As all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another..." (D&C 88:118).

Thanks, Nevo, I appreciate the sentiment. Good to see you back, even if it's only temporary.

[_Doctor Scratch]

"One of them"? You're going to have to cite specific text here. Where does he say this, and how is it used rhetorically to "lead members down a particular path"? For this to be true, you'd have to demonstrate that he's trying to persuade people to do and believe as he does. So let's see the evidence.

Are you suggesting that JD does not claim to be LDS?

I asked you a set of things. I guess you have no real answer and you're conceding?

[_Gadianton]

So, what you're saying is that the playing field isn't fair. It's severely tipped in favor of the critics. Not being bound by a set of ethical guidelines gives one a huge advantage. I have to say that I agree.

Are you saying the writers of the missionary guide are wrong?

If the critics are as bad as you say, it's only a superficial advantage. Angry customers don't have an advantage over Wal Mart just because the CSR does a refund, apologizes, and doesn't yell back at the customer. Have you ever been in a mega-store where an irate customer is yelling at an employee or manger and thought to yourself, "Wow, it's all over for Lowes now, since that manager is bound by corporate policy not to punch this customer in the face. What an advantage this ranting customer has, this national chain is powerless to do anything about him!"

I suppose they do. Again, the playing field is unfairly balanced in favor of the lawless.

What are you talking about? The Church is the billion dollar corporation with 12 million members, not the critics. How is it that a handful of critics have a powerful advantage over the church, especially due to their "lawlessness" evidenced by smack talk on message boards? I did not say the Church takes it laying down, but rather, is playing the game at a higher level than the apologists and many critics are playing it. Do not mistake what I've said about customer service orientation for gullibility, nicey-niceness, or Christlike behavior. It can be a shrewd strategy employed by scheming men who desire victory at all costs, and who perhaps feel nothing or even disdain the customer.

Has your opinion of JD changed?

It's improved slightly, because I was thinking if he was out trying to get answers from the Church for questioning members, or trying to arbitrate between the Church and the questioning member, but then getting caught up dealing with the MI or FAIR as if either represented the Church. He makes a bit more sense given the background you provided. However, I must say that I truly believe mopologetics is on its deathbed, and that it won't be very important for much longer to the questioning member. If I were he, I'd be more worried about how those in high places cordial toward him plan to work him into their agenda or ultimately diffuse his project. The customer service landscape is tightening a bit. Vocally refusing to pay tithing etc. will not sit well. Border's books learned this lesson the hard way. Barnes and Noble took out their soft chairs, and you don't see all the game-playing at Best Buy anymore. The Church isn't going to give a bunch of non-tithe payers a nice place to relax and socialize in the long run.

[_Doctor Scratch]

How is his approach more harmful than, say, that of FAIR or FARMS or SHIELDS?

Touché. Big touché.

I really would like to see a sincere answer from Nevo. I've seen a lot of critics praising him as being one of the more level-headed and decent apologists, so I'm especially curious about this.

[_keithb]

I think those who respond to him and remain members are chapel Mormons who are afraid of embracing internet Mormonism as a means of remaining a member.

Perhaps they see John's example of do what you want and let the rest slide.

Don't agree with where the tithes are going? Stop paying.

Creeped out or bored to tears by the temple ceremony? Stop attending.

Tired of doing the Mormon shuffle(adjusting your garmies after sitting) because of garment creep?
Tired of being forced to wear lame fashions and sweating your ass off in the summer?
TOSS THE GARMENTS. Save one pair for when you *might attend the temple.

Don't like attending services every bleeping sunday? Go when you want. Why waste a nice weekend inside a building full of stuffy people listening to the same old lessons that you have been hearing since you were old enough to be forced to sit still and listen when you could be outside having fun with your kids?

LDS Inc wants to become mainstream then they best accept that their members will be more like members of mainstream religions.

This.

If the Mormon church is going to have any chance of survival moving forward, they're going to have to learn to stop dying on every little hill of their current culture. They need to learn to shut up about how many earrings a girl wears, what color shirts young men wear to pass the sacrament, whether guy with always-pregnant wives like to watch internet girls get funky, etc. I am pretty sure that this would help people who are disinterested or deconverted from the church to stay in it for cultural reasons (if they want) and to stop the bleeding that is either happening or soon to happen in Western countries.

[_Kishkumen]

The below is one of this most insightful posts on this issue I have seen.

So, what you're saying is that the playing field isn't fair. It's severely tipped in favor of the critics. Not being bound by a set of ethical guidelines gives one a huge advantage. I have to say that I agree.

Are you saying the writers of the missionary guide are wrong?

If the critics are as bad as you say, it's only a superficial advantage. Angry customers don't have an advantage over Wal Mart just because the CSR does a refund, apologizes, and doesn't yell back at the customer. Have you ever been in a mega-store where an irate customer is yelling at an employee or manger and thought to yourself, "Wow, it's all over for Lowes now, since that manager is bound by corporate policy not to punch this customer in the face. What an advantage this ranting customer has, this national chain is powerless to do anything about him!"

I suppose they do. Again, the playing field is unfairly balanced in favor of the lawless.

What are you talking about? The Church is the billion dollar corporation with 12 million members, not the critics. How is it that a handful of critics have a powerful advantage over the church, especially due to their "lawlessness" evidenced by smack talk on message boards? I did not say the Church takes it laying down, but rather, is playing the game at a higher level than the apologists and many critics are playing it. Do not mistake what I've said about customer service orientation for gullibility, nicey-niceness, or Christlike behavior. It can be a shrewd strategy employed by scheming men who desire victory at all costs, and who perhaps feel nothing or even disdain the customer.

Has your opinion of JD changed?

It's improved slightly, because I was thinking if he was out trying to get answers from the Church for questioning members, or trying to arbitrate between the Church and the questioning member, but then getting caught up dealing with the MI or FAIR as if either represented the Church. He makes a bit more sense given the background you provided. However, I must say that I truly believe mopologetics is on its deathbed, and that it won't be very important for much longer to the questioning member. If I were he, I'd be more worried about how those in high places cordial toward him plan to work him into their agenda or ultimately diffuse his project. The customer service landscape is tightening a bit. Vocally refusing to pay tithing etc. will not sit well. Border's books learned this lesson the hard way. Barnes and Noble took out their soft chairs, and you don't see all the game-playing at Best Buy anymore. The Church isn't going to give a bunch of non-tithe payers a nice place to relax and socialize in the long run.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Kieth,

If the Mormon church is going to have any chance of survival moving forward,

Any chance of survival? I think it's large enough that mere survival is not at issue.

they're going to have to learn to stop dying on every little hill of their current culture. They need to learn to shut up about how many earrings a girl wears, what color shirts young men wear to pass the sacrament, whether guy with always-pregnant wives like to watch internet girls get funky, etc. I am pretty sure that this would help people who are disinterested or deconverted from the church to stay in it for cultural reasons (if they want) and to stop the bleeding that is either happening or soon to happen in Western countries.

In line with my other posts on this thread, if the deconverted are bought this easily, I question the merits of their deconversion. Do you really think the LDS church isn't trying to do just as you say ask, and fully cater to every last spoiled American customer? I think they are. Hinckley went so far as to put the gag on the then prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, to keep him from alienating members and the world in general with commentary on real doctrines and prophecies. Hinckley pretty much ended all doctrine, and moved the Church into the present City-Creek era. Did his PR campaign have blindspots? Sure. The guy was ancient, and added depression-era coloration to everything he said, but he pulled a massive fast one on the whole church and very few noticed. You have to respect his cunning a little bit. The church does learn. The brethren are fully surrounded by marketing experts, statisticians, and financial consultants. How often does the leadership really push the earring and shirt thing? I haven't been to church in years, but I'm not seeing many complaints about this except when speaking of the past. As my BYU econometrics teacher told my class years and years ago, the Church mathematicians regress every variable conceivable against the only real variable that matters: tithing revenue (thought he didn't put it quite that way). The main thing that slows them is the leadership is just too old to fully keep up with the times, but on the whole they're doing a damn good job. The greater question for me is, however, once the Church gets the right PR campaign on the table and figures out how to avoid cramping everyone's style, is that better, or worse for the world? Are y'all going to be satisfied with the Church then? To me, if God the Father really did call Joseph Smith as a prophet in a grove of trees, the leaders can tell me what color of shirts to wear every day of the week. If he didn't, then the whole thing is a fraud, and if the Church can take 10% of the income of members on the basis of a BS origin story, the fact that they can figure out a way to write speeches and implement policies that maximize the number of members willing to pay that 10%, it makes them smarter, but not better.

[_Tator]

It seems to me, when it comes to the sticky issues, that the church's response is "no comment" and if unavoidable, some vague, customer-service oriented boilerplate that is not a real answer.

In my experience, the church's response is usually go ask God about it. That's always worked for me. I've never received a "no comment" answer.

A typical answer....it has always worked for you" yet you can't produce an example.....again typical. I can't begin to count the times that this "defense" has been produced with no examples. This is another example of blaming the member.

This PR problem with members and apologists can be solved by having the elite 15 do what you are suggesting instead of the rank and file. Why not have the elite 15 of this corporation ask God? Get some "continuting" revelation? Where is their powers of priesthood discernment?

Why silence from the elite? Why only boilerplate? Why do the apologists or the members have to do their bidding?

All we get from them and you is pay, pray and obey......its sickening and just more static.