John Dehlin, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.

So stop disrespecting the man...

cowering under the church authorities, really? Being a NOM is a cop out. I'm sorry you don't see it that way but good luck.

and also, don't tell me to "stop" anything.

I think of Dehlin as an ex-mo James Bond.

He totally had me fooled last year when he seemed to "repent" of his criticism of the church. It was all a part of his long term plan. He was able to squeeze out another year and a half of legitimacy where he accomplished a lot with his TEDx talk, and made podcasts catered more towards NOM's to further infiltrate Mormon culture through their connections.

MEDIEVAL Inquisition mentality

Apostates= Those who have strayed outside the limits of the ONE TRUE HOLY CHURCH.

Apostates come in many flavors.

I used to have no respect for the NOMs, but I realized I was projecting my own black and white thinking on others.

The Mormons WANT you to be one thing or another, so they can label you, process you, either love bomb you or shun you, but first you have to tell them what you are.

So, some of us refuse to be labeled, so what?

When you stop and think about it, what could be funnier than a church bloated with people who no longer take it seriously, who don't believe and who are laughing inside?

It's The Emperor's New Clothes. By the way, I have a testimony that that fable is TRUUUUUUUUUUUE.


Kathleen Waters

John's BIC children. Technically none of my business, I agree.

The BIC to BIC cycle is a form of child abuse. Giving them toy tools and telling them they are useful and legitimate rather than giving them tools for life. I do not know the details, but one thing I have never seen from John is a discussion about the appropriateness of teaching children "The One True Church", "Mormon Prayer", "Mormon Priesthood", and "The Mormon Temple Cult Ritual"

Should kids be taught these things? Let's have that discussion.

This is not an intellectual conversation amongst adults. The Mormon church is a proven fraud. The conversation shifts to that of adults and children in adult bodies.

Actually he has discussed this... I think in his video about why he chooses to stay. He mentioned that he tells his kids that TSCC is NOT the "one true church". Beyond that, his testimony is posted on his blog and he believes in very little in common with Mormonism.

He stays NOM for the culture. If that works for him, then great. But I suspect that given the recent series of events, he is nearly completely out the door now.

Playing with fire for the Mormon culture. Maybe you see NOMs as brave since they value the Mormon culture while rejecting the way that culture is achieved.

I know it is messy, primarily because of Mormon doctrines and culture against those of us that leave. It is also messy because those of us that leave either need really thick, stubborn skin to get out, or are outsiders of Mormonism by definition.

I would never raise children near Mormonism, not even close. It is an awful belief system and the better approach in my mind is to start a new legacy than compromise with the old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2014 06:49PM by gentlestrength.

+1 trillion

John willingly displays his feelings, attitudes and character in a very public forum. By doing so he gives an insight to others who hurt in very different ways. While most don't go through everything John battles we empathize and relate our own narratives and apply them in our situations to seek understanding and healing. The torment and anguish he goes through must be gut wrenching. He is a man, father and friend doing the best he can to help others along their journey in life. He is a seeker of truth and would like others to know the truth. We know who the enemy is...it's not John.

Agree. He is playing a very important role in getting the truth to TBMs who otherwise wouldn't even listen to "anti-Mormon" lies.

I think john did more for the salvation of men in this world than Jesus: after all, John isn't imaginary.

I'm not a fan of the man, sorry.

L Tom Petty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So stop disrespecting the man...

My qualm with Brother Dehlin isn't that he appears to be using LDS Inc. legitimacy (which in the past I found distasteful but I hadn't quite noodled what it was that bugged me about him) it is the legitimacy he and other like Johanna Brooks give to LDS Inc. in their tacit support of this corrupt "non-profit."

I support my family and they support LDS Inc. but they know that I hate this second hand support and that I don't lend any credibility to LDS inc. in my attitudes and opinions towards it.

Dehlin is like my actual brother who came to terms with LDS Inc. over his son's sexual orientation and is trying to support LDS Inc. and his son's committed relationship with a same-sex partner.

It galls me that my brother even tries to server two "masters."

He is one of many that happened to get themselves in the cross-hairs of the LDS Church because of his public statements and discussions, and pod casts.
He provided some info for some folks who are interested.

Like all of us, he's doing it his way.

One of the hardest thinking patterns to ditch seems to be the idea that everyone has to do everything in some only correct, only true, way.

There needs to be room for individuality and discussion without attacking others personally.

And so it goes on. Life is filled with wonderful opportunities to evaluate others with ideas that may or may not mesh with ours. I'm still doing that. Some I like, some I discard, some I'm still thinking about.
No rules. Just fun!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2014 01:08PM by SusieQ#1.

Amen Susie! John Dehlin's information helped me out. I am forever grateful for the man! This board was much too much for me when I first left and Dehlin's podcasts were better on my brainwashed ears. Now I listen to dehlin less and come here often. I am grateful for what he does.. He puts the info out there and you do with it as you please. I agree too that he will fully leave and announce it on his HIS. Terms and nobody else's-nor is it our business. :)

Topping

Hooray! Kudos to you SusieQ

It can be rather depressing to trade one type of rigidity for another. I'm not sure if those most resolute in their beliefs get the irony.

I get it. But there is a big difference between letting a fraud be a "mythology" and supporting it for the advantages you get and the help you give to people to stay in a fraud.

You have to call it something other than a fraud to "not be rigid" and that I cannot do.

austrobrit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hooray! Kudos to you SusieQ
>
> It can be rather depressing to trade one type of
> rigidity for another. I'm not sure if those most
> resolute in their beliefs get the irony.


Thanks... you "get it"... my point exactly!!
Once people leave tghe LDS Church they are often fueled with such negativity they think they are saving the world and many think everyone else needs to do the same!
ahh..not so fast! Doesn't work that way.

If you listen to his recently reposted podcasts numbers 397-399 you will hear that he did fancy himself a saviour. He says so many times. Thousands of people, according to him, have been saved in some way because of his work. Good on him. But who wants to be Jesus?

This is a confessional sequence of interviews. He also admits to trying to build a post-Mo community and held gatherings in many places to try to build communities for disaffected Mormons.

Whoops. John Dehlin hasn't left the church. He's been "filled with negativity" for the past ten years while being a member of the mormon church.

Personally, I find the mormons full of bitterness and negativity. In general, I prefer the attitude of ex-mormons. Of course, that's coming from a person who was never a mormon. When I crossed paths with mormonism I was stunned to find myself in a swamp of ignorance and fear. Boy, did I get out of that situation. Can't help but look back at that stew, wipe my brow and be thankful I didn't have to live in such craziness. :)

He's a bit too melodramatic for me in the way he acts out his personal problems in public. Of course, everybody will walk their own path but there's no law requiring me to respect each path.

To me, he comes across as an emotionally immature attention seeker on the edge of sanity.

When my wife and I left the church, it was all we could talk about for months on end. I don't think it damaged our eldest child but it must have had an impact; when we ask her about that time now, we get a benign, pitying smile.

Can you imagine what it's like at the Dehlin family table? I'm with "gentlestrength" on this one. He needs to stop putting his insecurities and anxieties in the limelight like this.

Just my opinion as an exmo father who had the priceless advantage of having a spouse who was on the same page when I started questioning the church.

I'm a big fan of Dehlin and I agree with Anagrammy that the tendency to portray people in black and white terms is a regrettable leftover from our days as Mormons. Dehlin is the god of the gray and, as such, someone who brings out strong feelings particularly in our crowd.

Having said that, I think rt's review is well-argued and largely correct. Dehlin, like all of us, does carry baggage from his childhood; and, like all of us, he is dealing with it in his daily life and in his relationships with his kids. It is not ideal for his family that things have happened so publicly. His wife is already quite open in her frustration that Mormonism dominates Dehlin's, and by extension her, life.

I don't agree that he is on the verge of insanity. He's just another imperfect human trying to do good while also, to some degree subconsciously, working through his own personal problems. But that coincides with work that has great social value in what he is documenting for history, the space he's trying to create for people to walk their own (twilight) paths, and in his challenge to the authoritarian church.

The truth is that most people who do great things in the public and political spheres are like that. Think of any great leader, a depressive like Lincoln or a narcissist like Churchill, both of whom did what they did largely because of their own childhoods. My guess is that even a Fawn Brodie or a Juanita Brooks or a Kate Kelly were motivated in part by the need to work out early traumas and the issues they created. Obviously all of these people imposed costs on their families.

That's what big political efforts are like. They are undertaken by flawed people who to some extent subordinate the needs of their loved ones. They are gray people in a gray world. Sometimes they are also courageous and make big contributions to the world.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dehlin is the god of the gray

I like that!


Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My guess is that even a Fawn
> Brodie or a Juanita Brooks or a Kate Kelly were
> motivated in part by the need to work out early
> traumas and the issues they created.

Don't know about Brodie or Kelly but Brooks has stated as much in her book about MMM - that is was her grandfather's deathbed confession that started her search or something to that effect (it's been a while since I read it and I'm too lazy to look it up).


Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's what big political efforts are like. They
> are undertaken by flawed people who to some extent
> subordinate the needs of their loved ones.

A common theme in literature and cinematography. It's a pity that this appears to be necessary. Me, I couldn't look my family in the eye and say, screw you, daddy's cause is more important than you. That's why I won't amount to anything in the long run and not being a Mormon anymore, with the sacred obligation to save the entire world, I don't even care.

I agree. The implication of that observation about the flawed nature of great leaders is that they don't give their kids what they need. Perhaps there really is an incompatibility between achieving great public fame and being a good parent, even a good spouse.

Sad, but possibly true.

First time I've ever heard that one.

Care to justify that one or shall I just dismiss it as roadkill, given that I have some grad education that included in-depth study of narcissistic disorders and I also do a bit of history now and then, including a couple of contributions to American Heritage and the Smithsonian magazines.

Sorry, but there's no way any individual with NPD would've been able to match any of Sir Winston's accomplishments; he doubtless had scars from his upbringing, but they weren't of that variety.

He also remained married to one woman his entire life, and there weren't many scandals associated in that area either. Aside from being a heavy drinker with a fondness for cigars, he appears to me to be one of those geniuses history bequeaths on us far too rarely.

I'm inclined to think you're repeating a glib talking point of some wannabe historian with unresolved NPD issues of his own.

Anyway, I like your perspective rt, and I'm inclined to cut John a lot of slack (I sent him a supportive e-mail a few weeks ago after Simon Southerton included me in a discussion with him).

His situation is as much illustrative of just how toxic and traumatic the LDS culture is, and at this point I suspect he's simply in survival mode, and I'm not inclined to make any harsh judgments.

I will make a judgment on the former RFM poster whose old thread was resurrected by a trollish sort. I met him at an RFM function, and I just laid out a bit about what was being presented and suggested he could find some support.

He was obviously in need of it (and probably some meds as well).

No, it's not a throw-away line.

Churchill had a bad childhood, experiencing the usual combination of neglect and isolation that produce attachment disorders. He also had the capacity to use and dispose of people at will; there was one advisor, a man who worked as a spy in the British government during Churchill's 1930s exile, who ended up committing suicide as a result. There were many others, as well, whom he used and then tossed aside.

Churchill was also unprincipled, capable of turning on a dime as his interests dictated. That is why he switched from the liberal to the conservative party. He was also well known for reversing himself on multiple occasions when serving as First Lord at the turn of the century and again as Chancellor of the Exchequer. In both jobs he switched positions frequently and unpredictably, a bit like his father did during his meteoric career. That is why people in the UK view him as a much more enigmatic and controversial figure than people in the States do.

Churchill also had a difficult personal life. One of the reasons he never cheated on his wife was that he was, in Manchester's words, famously undersexed. It was she who cheated on him--not that either would have been evidence of narcissism given the mores of their class at that time. But Churchill was not around much for his children, he spent so much money that he did not have that his family was for decades on the verge of penury, and he had few personal friends. He was a man driven by his need for fame and power rather than by deep personal attachments.

As someone who knows about narcissism, you'll understand that some of the highest achievers in business, the clergy, law and politics are narcissists. It is sociopaths and borderlines, also part of the attachment cluster, who are almost always inhibited by their illnesses. Narcissists, by contrast, are often empowered professionally by their condition. The general view of people who study Churchill is that he was one of those. A more balanced and well-adjusted man could have achieved what he did.

It's easy to want to like John Dehlin, but on the other hand he seems like a fake. Maybe he was put out there by the church to control the message of ex-mormons through his interviews, blunting and soft selling their criticism of the church. His central message appears to be that "You may have criticisms, but you should stay in anyway. Be a nice guy like me." Hence his creation of http://www.staylds.com/. It's odd that he was close enough to the Quorum of the Twelve to give them a presentation on why members leave. They won't touch most ex-mormons with a ten foot pole, even some very nice ones like Grant Palmer. Yet he got their time? Why?
I want to believe him, I want to hope that he's for real. But there's too many strange things about John Dehlin. Most likely, people's instincts are correct that there is something fake about him.

"In September 2005, after finding reasons to stay a member of the LDS Church, Dehlin created the podcast as an open discussion of Mormon issues with the intention of giving listeners reasons to remain in the church."

Who does it serve for Mormons to stay part of a corrupt church? The Mormons? The Ex-Mormons? Their families? Or the church? The answer to that question is probably the correct answer to the question of who John Dehlin really serves. I want to trust the guy, but I think he's bought and paid for by the church to serve their own ends.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2014 03:10PM by raiku.

Not only does he meet with "the 12" but he gets a "hit piece" by Peterson squashed. He goes much farther than many and nothing is done for YEARS. KK gets exed but JD is handled with kid gloves and sent on his merry way. They obviously like the message he is peddling and that message is it is not so bad, STAY. I wonder how many spouses have been told to suck it up and just pretend, go through the motions. John can do it so can you.

JD is playing both sides of the fence to build up his private practice. Wake up people, it's all about the money. He is turning exmormonism into a cottage industry. I find it even more disgusting that he preys upon the weakest - those in a mixed marriage. 0 integrity, 100% avarice.

Once you put yourself out in the public eye on the Internet, you open yourself up to every level of praise and criticism.

He seems to be able to take it all and deal with it.

My own personal theory is that Dehlin ultimately wants Mormonism to evolve into a more mainstream Christian church. It's a selfish goal if you think about it: wanting to change your religion to fit yourself, instead of just leaving it altogether.

Martin Luther was a breakaway theologian. John Dehlin is a podcaster trying to serve two disparate audiences in "fair and balanced" way.