How can Dehlin give a seven hour interview and still not let his guest speak???
I'm listening to the new Mormon Stories interview with Ed Decker of Godmakers fame. This post is only about the interview, not about Decker's (bad) reputation. And I like Dehlin - I think the good he does far outweighs any bad. But this is not his finest hour
In part 2, Dehlin asks Decker about Decker's claim that Lucifer is the god of the Mormon temple. A great question, as this is the topic that crystalises everyone's problems with Decker. But Dehlin won't let Decker reply! He keeps talking over him.
What especially bugs me is John's anti-intellectual approach. Ed explained that this is a big topic that needs a whole book. John insisted on a quick version. So Ed gave a highly simplified version. And then John started talking over him, wanting a quick answer to a complex tangent, but not letting Ed finish.
Example: Ed focused on Lucifer's apron. That's a good idea: simple and clear. But John then attacked Ed on how could Elohim tell Peter to cast out Lucifer? This is exactly the kind of deep detail that might take an hour to develop. Or three hours for someone like Radio Free Mormon. (RFM just released a three hour podcast on the Book of Abraham: even a simple idea can take an hour to get across.) Ed did his best to give a simple answer to this complex point - Lucifer lies; Elohim is a hold over from older polytheism, etc. - but John just kept talking over him.
Look, I know Ed Decker has a bad reputation. And I know that Lucifer is "just" a myth. But I like myths. I want to hear how Decker reinterpreted all that temple stuff. John, if you are going to ask a question, at least give the guy a chance to speak!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2020 07:35AM by faraday.
Decker does come out with some trash. He was so bad that even the Utah Lighthouse Mission complained about the inaccuracies in the film.
Lucifer is not the god of the Mormon temple, at least not openly. However, there are troubling aspects of the Endowment regarding Lucifer. And ALL of these are real and not speculation -
* Lucifer helps fulfil the plan. * Lucifer has an apron which is a symbol of his priesthood. * When Adam builds an altar and prays, Lucifer turns up. * Lucifer says he will make religion using the "philosophies of man". * Lucifer says that if the patrons don't keep all the covenants they will be "in my power". * We are told he rules this world.
Weighed up against this: * Jesus and HF narrate the endowment. * The tokens are explained in Christian terms. * Lucifer is cast out at least twice. * Lucifer is accused of leading Adam and Eve astray, and true teachers are sent down to correct this. * Lucifer is gone (at least openly) by the time of the veil. * Lucifer plays no part in the creation.
I agree that it's a hard sell. And no doubt Decker's argument would have failed. But I would like to have heard it anyway. Because I like playing Devil's Advocate. This is how I would have approached the claim, just as an intellectual exercise:
> * Jesus and HF narrate the endowment.
In traditional Christianity, Jesus is God. So the fact that we have two gods side by side must mean this is not the traditional Christian God, but some polytheistic counterfeit. Elohim was the name of the pluralistic gods back when they fought among themselves. So the temple story, the battle between Lucifer and Elohim's team is like the battle between junior god Marduk and the older gods. And the older gods lost! :)
> * The tokens are explained in Christian terms.
If I was arguing for Lucifer, I would argue that Christian tokens are an oxymoron: just like a polytheistic God. So the gnostic or enlightened reader would look deeper. Christian language is used because it is the only language the audience knows. It is saying something different: milk before meat.
> * Lucifer is cast out at least twice.
Only after getting what he wants. "If they make even one mistake they will be in my power". And since all people make mistakes, he has won. Hence we end the temple ceremony by giving tokens through the specially shaped holes in the veil: that is, through the signs from Lucifer's apron.
In any well written story the hero will lose at the start, but in the end he wins, and you then realise that even when losing he was outsmarting the enemy.
> * Lucifer is accused of leading Adam and Eve astray, and true teachers are sent down to correct this.
Yes, there is a battle between the older gods and the new upstart, but the upstart wins! Isn't that a Christian idea? Get crucified, seem to lose, but win in the end. As far as I know Lucifer really likes this kind of battle. he's a "survival of the fittest" guy, not a "boring obedience" guy.
> * Lucifer is gone (at least openly) by the time of the veil.
At least openly :)
> * Lucifer plays no part in the creation.
Why get his hands dirty? It was created in order for humans to be tested by Lucifer. In other words, it was created to order, for him. Given that everything works out according to his plan (we sin and are therefore in his power, and we must enter heaven through the marks in his apron) this puts Lucifer in the gnostic role as boss god. It reduces Elohim and J., to the role of pompous unaware demiurge: glorified workmen.
Just playing devil's advocate :) :)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2020 01:50PM by faraday.
Another tactic that JD hammers away is to spend nearly an hour going over the background of the interviewee to mormonism; especially if he/she grew up in the church.It reaffirms his premise that the church really did good in teaching values/respect~ this is something that I strongly disagree with.
I truly believe that he's waiting for a new-order mormon-christo church to rise up and ask him to return. JD really loves being mormon and the perks that come with it.
These kinds of arguements are so counter-productive when everything is framed in a strictly religious context. It's like discussing which restaurant is the only true restaurant, and then using as justifications, the pros and cons of what is on each respective restaurant's menu as opposed to what would be on the menu of the only true restaurant (a rediculous arguement). In such a scenario, we should discuss which restaurants had clean kitchens and which ones had rats in their kitchens, and which ones had employees who washed their hands before going to work. We might discuss which menu items we like the most, or better than the other restaurant's competition. But you can't really dismiss the legitimacy of any religion until their practices and culture become harmful to society (as mormonism does). Then you talk about those harmful things when discrediting them, and not about which apron someone wore. You can never prove anything by discussing their aprons (and other equally stupid symbols of rituals).
I dismissed Ed Decker more than thirty years ago (when I was still a TBM), and maintain Decker's lack of credibility still today for the same reasons that I did back then. 1.) Ed Decker lies about Mormonism routinely. 2.) Ed Decker has his own mis-guided religious views. And who really needs to lie about Mormonism anyway? The actual truth about Mormonism is bad enough all by itself. No lies are necessary to discredit Mormonism. Just tell the truth about it. So with Decker, we have a guy who lies about his competition to try to gain a competitive edge and yes, he probably was hurt by Mormonism. But telling lies to get even or in attempts to gain an advantage is just plain messed-up. Decker is as screwed-up as are many believing mormons who think that they have the only truth which leads to number three. 3.) I don't trust Jesus Freaks. If someone wants to believe in Jesus, that's fine. I respect them until they give me reasons to not respect them. Unless I choose to attend one of their religious services, in most cases I don't even need to know who they are. I don't need to see a symbol of a fish on their car. I don't need to see them bring Jesus up all of the time like they just saw him in person yesterday. They just need to live their religion themselves and leave it at that. Decker doesn't even live his own religious beliefs.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2020 02:45PM by azsteve.
I agree. I always despised Ed Decker and his GodMakers books and movies but damn, I actually kind of liked him in this interview and NOT John Delhin.
One thing I’ve always liked about Dehlin was that he was never too extreme and his talk allowed for both sides to come on his and give their point of view. It was an open forum that was somewhat “safe” for anyone “pro”, “anti”, or anywhere in between. John still tried to challenge his guests with “tough” questions but was usually very respectful about it and allowed them time to speak.
I felt like he was just attacking Decker the whole time and would give him props when props were due. It was like he made up his mind beforehand that NOTHING Ed Decker would say could be good and seemed to just talk over everything he said without ever acknowledging that anything he said was good or when he made a good or satisfactory answer.
It was really weird. It really bugged me. It’s one thing to ask a controversial person the tough questions but John came across as so biased and uncompromising. No respect shown even when it was deserved. It was like he just made up his mind that Decker was this bad guy that deserved no mercy and he wasn’t going to let him get away with anything. It seemed very close minded.
Ed Decker is a polarizing character in the Mormon world and he’s frustrated a lot of Ex-Mormons who feel his book was too sensational and misleading, this giving critics a bad name but Decker not frickin evil or anything. We might disagree with some of his previous tactics and writing style but I don’t think he’s a bad person. Dehlin let his bias and preconceived notions control his interview too much. He came across as having a clear agenda. It’s funny because he’s shown far more respect to people on his show like profession Mormon apologists, who, in my opinion deserve far less respect than Ed Decker.
I think Ed Decker saw opportunity in the evangelical type of religion that was popular then. He jumped on board and exposing Satanism was all the rage. So as a former Mormon Ed marketed an expose of the Mormon Church’s Satanism.
Ed was selling a product to an customer base that loved sensationalism. I think he was having fun making tax free income and sticking it to the church which seemed to annoy him.
Decker was cashing in on the satanic panic. Dehlin is cashing in on the age of it being difficult to hide information due to the internet. The Decker model just became dated. It was very hot in the 1980’s.
It has been a very long time since I saw Decker's movie and even though I was out of Mormonism my assessment was that it was outlandishly sensational more than containing falsehoods. Sort of National Enquirer rather than The Times. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on deliberate lies it contained
John Dehlin is in love with his own voice. He doesn’t shut up and let his guests speak. He constantly interrupts them with questions that are meaningless to the listener. He interrupts the flow of EVERY SINGLE INTERVIEW.
I was totally frustrated with this interview because of Dehlin’s constant interruptions and his bloviating rants about what he knows and what his opinions are.
A good interviewer is a good listener. Dehlin is neither, in spite of the good he has done to bring knowledge forward.
I think Ed Decker was a bit of a huxster. He started a tax free ministry and used the anti-Mormon thing to sell his own version of the Satanic panic. He had a nice home I used to drive by everyday going to work.
John Dehlin admitted he started Mormon Stories to bring some extra money in. I think he got tired of his job at Microsoft where the corporate culture sucks (I know because I worked there) and wanted to do something else. So he went back to school and needed a source of income. He was honest saying his main motivator for starting Moron Stories was to make some money.
His main concern seems to be the psychological trauma the church puts people through and he wants to reform the church. Maybe the guy has some ego but who doesn’t? The pay dirt is finding new dirt on the church especially if you can get it from a former church employee or authority. I admit. I love that stuff.
Rubicon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John Dehlin admitted he started Mormon Stories to > bring some extra money in.
I didn't know that. Interesting. He has often said he thinks it is unfair that people can get paid a ton for a regular job, yet when he wants the same money for doing good, people complain.
I suppose I am one of the complainers. I earn close to minimum wage, and people in less wealthy countries earn a lot less than me. So when John asks for "ten dollars a month, a hundred dollars a month, whatever you can afford" - and never specifies less than ten, it's like a sign that says "rich people only please". And he is so growth oriented: let's create a foundation, with a second podcast stream, and a third, and real life retreats, whatever money you give, we need more! More!
Contrast John with someone like Bryce Blankernagel (Naked Mormonism). He comes from a low pay background, and is just super grateful that donations let him follow his passion full time. He deeply appreciates every penny that's donated, and never makes people feel guilty if they can't pay. There is no suggestion of a Naked Mormonism empire that will need more and more money.
To be fair, John reaches a lot more people. But at what cost? Institutions tend to become diluted. They have to make friends with power. Whereas someone like Bryce can do and say whatever the hell he wants.
I think John did really well for awhile. But then people lose their interest and you have to keep finding interesting people to interview to keep it going; especially, former church leaders (the higher up the better). Mormon Stories is informational entertainment. You have to keep it interesting to keep it going. That’s hard. You just see John glow when a guest has something juicy to say. It’s almost like the tabloids in that regard.