The other day my 6-year-old son came to me in tears, recounting the story of how he was – for the first time in his short time in the public education system – called a nasty name by a schoolmate.
That wasn’t the thing that bothered me. Kids are going to call him names. I’m sure at some point his tender heart will cross over into the dark side and he may even call someone a name at some point. These things happen.
What hit me to the core was learning about how his sister, only one year his younger, had stood next to him and laughed at him when the name was called.
Family stands by each other, I told her. Family sticks together.
I grew up in the bible belt of the south where the Mormons had to stick together at school. Ridicule one, ridicule us all was our motto. We took pride in standing up for each other or simply just being there for each other when students repudiated our faith.
Mormon family stands by each other. We stick together. Or at least we should.
We get this from our long line of pioneer heritage. We couldn’t help but stick together when the mobs combined and the calumny defamed.
That’s probably why it’s been difficult for me lately to watch a Mormon community that seems to be all too eager to perhaps not explicitly push John Dehlin out the door, but perhaps stand by the door and whisper to each other as he’s marched toward an ignominious exit from the church.
As has been the case for a couple of prominent Mormon bloggers who have almost single-handedly fueled the Mormon rumor mill with their chin-scratchings about John Dehlin’s pending disciplinary trial. I’ll save the appropriateness of such chin-scratching for another post at another time.
This post is an examination of the contributions of Steve Evans – founder of the popular LDS blog By Common Consent – and conservative LDS blogger Nathaniel Givens – who also happens to be the son of two of the most compassionate, visible and thoughtful Mormons I know, Terryl and Fiona Givens – to the larger conversation about Dehlin’s disciplinary proceedings.
I want to preface what I am about to say with a clear message:
I have come to know Steve Evans and Nathaniel Givens purely in online settings — never in person. Although I disagree with their writings at times, I find them in general to be thoughtful people. Based on my limited interaction with them, I believe their motives to be genuine, although I not only disagree with but also find much disappointment in their approaches in regards to the recent controversies surrounding John Dehlin’s pending disciplinary council.
This post is an attempt to understand Evans and Nathaniel, not to attack them. I invite them to engage in open and honest dialogue about the issues I put forth in this post. But most of all, I invite them to find ways to show compassion for John rather than simply finding ways to criticize.
The alarm bells began going off in my head first upon reading comments from Evans in a Salt Lake Tribune article on the day Dehlin announced that his stake president, Bryan King, would be initiating formal disciplinary proceedings against him.
Here’s the quote, the first half paraphrased by Peggy Fletcher Stack, the second a direct quote from Evans:
Evans questions whether Dehlin’s support of gay marriage and Ordain Women was the main reason for the move against the podcaster.
“Mormons have all kinds of personal views on these topics, without reprisals from their leaders,” he said. “I’ve never encountered any church discipline out of my support for women’s rights or for LGBT rights.”
Here, Steve portrays John’s reasons for the church court incorrectly, and then criticizes John not for the actual reasons Dehlin provided, but rather, Steve’s incorrect portrayal of the facts. This is a textbook straw man fallacy.
It doesn’t inform us of the truth, but instead serves to divide us, by a type of false “name calling” in the playground of public opinion.
The second part of the quote attributed to Steve is a classic example of the logical fallacy of “composition/division.” In this fallacy, one presumes consistency even when there is a lack of evidence to prove such. In other words, assuming that because one person experiences something, therefore everyone must experience it.
Steve makes the assumption that just because he’s never encountered church discipline as a result for his support of women’s rights and LGBT issues, therefore there’s no possible way John Dehlin’s discipline could be a result of support of those same issues. Not only is this a “composition/division” fallacy, but Steve suffers from an extreme case of over-simplification, as John mentioned specifically Ordain Women and support of same-sex marriage legislation in his blog post.
I’ll admit, one of the things that most puzzles me is Steve feeling the need to insert himself in this way and at this time. At first blush, this seems to be precisely the type of standing at the door and whispering speculation that is so distasteful to me when we’re talking about the socially barbaric process of formally stripping someone of their religious identity and branding them a heretic — otherwise known as excommunication for apostasy.
In discussions I have had with Steve, he has admitted that he’s never really had any interaction with John Dehlin personally. He doesn’t know him. He doesn’t really even pay that much attention to Mormon Stories except as it enters into the broader discussion about the world of Mormonism. Which is why it struck me as odd that he would pick up the phone and agree to be interviewed for this story. Why would he agree to publicly offer his personal opinion about the disciplinary proceedings of a man he has made clear he doesn’t care to get to know?
Let me be clear. Steve has every right to talk to anyone he wants about anything. I’m just wondering out loud why he decided to insert himself into the discussion. Seems odd to me.
Then there’s Nathaniel Givens.
To date, Nathaniel has written not one, not two, not three, but four posts in some form or fashion in different online publications about John Dehlin and his pending church discipline.
The most troubling aspect of Nathaniel’s posts where he addresses John’s pending discipline is how he pins almost his entire argument on the faulty logic Steve uses above. Nathaniel promulgates the same straw man – that John allegedly claims his support for Ordain Women and same-sex marriage are the only reason he’s being excommunicated when, in fact, John cited these among five reasons for the disciplinary council.
Additionally disappointing is the condescending way in which Givens insists he’s giving us the inside scoop in to the “real” reason why John faces excommunication, as if he has some special or privileged seat at the table that we do not have.
The fundamental problem with Nathaniel’s continued harping on the same point (as evidenced by four separate posts) is that he cherry picks John’s own statements and arguments in order to paint a narrative in which John is somehow able to singlehandedly manipulate the mainstream media into writing whatever he wants about him. It’s quite fascinating actually:
Dehlin promulgated a heroic narrative in which he will face down Church discipline because he refuses to abandon his support of same-sex marriage and Ordain Women. The narrative is attractive to a secular audience, which has picked it up and run with it.
I find it peculiar that nowhere does Nathaniel provide any sort of evidence to back up this promulgation of a “heroic narrative” by Dehlin. He actually includes no quotes from Dehlin in that respect. His biggest piece of ammo? Headlines written not by John himself, but by the media, and the fact that John happened to fire back at Steve Evans’ obvious straw man, as if defending oneself against logical fallacy is somehow a sign of a weak position or (even worse) some sort of deception. In the kind of faux-empathetic rhetorical style Nathaniel is employing, this seems particularly out of bounds.
Nathaniel then used up the final part of his January 20th post expressing “empathy” for John:
And so when I say that I have no desire to judge or demean Dehlin I mean it sincerely.
This, after spending more than 750 words dressing up a straw man, pasting a sign on him that says “John Dehlin” and then using a billy club to knock it down.
This, after saying things like:
Dehlin fed a dishonest narrative to the media on January 15th.
This after labeling John’s work as an attempt to “drive Mormons in faith crisis out of the Church.”
With Mormon “empathy” like this, who needs cruelty?
I wish we as Mormons were better at not doing this kind of thing. I wish we weren’t so prone to rubbernecking church discipline. I wish we were all a little better of keeping each other in the tribe (or at least being genuinely disappointed when someone is forced out) rather than gossiping about those facing discipline. I wish we talked more to each other than about each other.
Did John go to the media with details about his church discipline? He certainly did. Does that give us the right to speculate openly about it? It certainly does. But it doesn’t oblige us to. I simply wish as we were doing it, we demonstrated first and foremost a posture of true compassion; second, a posture of attempting to understand rather than obfuscate (whether intentionally or unintentionally) through tactics I have outlined above; and third, a posture of honest speculation — if necessary.
I just wish we would stick together more. All of us.
James Patterson
James Patterson lives with his wife and two children in North Carolina. He makes no apologies for being an avid fan of both Duke basketball and Taylor Swift.
All posts by James Patterson
It can sometimes be tempting to defend ourselves and our own positions, by going after those who appear to be challenging our narrative. This is exactly what happens when conservative members argue that there is no place at the table for socially liberal members. We as socially liberal members need to be careful to not do the same thing, pushing those who are inconvenient out, just because they challenge us in differing ways. This is a good reminder to me.
Do you think it to be a fair criticism that John has emphasized the 'social justice' issues and downplayed the others?
Jon, I think the fact that he has (lately) emphasized the social justice issues is largely due to the fact that Steve and Nathaniel made such a big stink about it.
If you look at his original blog post/release, you can see he clearly outlines all the reasons he’s facing discipline.
John’s summary paragraph: “While I acknowledge that LDS church leaders are in a very difficult situation as they attempt to retain membership during very difficult times, I consider it a matter of conscience to continue to advocate publicly for the many LDS LGBT members, feminists, and intellectuals who experience deep and continued marital/familial/social/spiritual/occupational/psychological distress as a result of the LDS church’s history, teachings, and policies. The past ten years of my life have been dedicated to providing support to these individuals, and while my family and I would prefer to be left alone by LDS church leadership at this point, I would much rather face excommunication than disavow my moral convictions.”
I think that a criticism that he is trying to frame his church discipline to be about social advocacy is not unfair.
That said, your thesis, which I understand to be that everyone should be more loving towards everyone, is a good one.
Jon, if you read that comment closely, you’ll notice it’s all-encompassing in regards the myriad of reasons why King is bringing disciplinary proceedings.
He mentions LGBT, he mentions feminism, AND he mentions church history issues/intellectualism.
I feel like you’re searching for a smoking gun that’s just not there.
I have read the entire comment. He stresses social advocacy. Also:
MoSto Jan 18 theme: “Stories of People Disciplined by LDS Church ‘just’ for Supporting Same-Sex Marriage”.
Jan 21, “Stories of Women (and Men) who Feel They Have Been Harmed by Mormon Patriarchy”
Also Jan 21, an interview with Clark Johnson about “his experience as a young gay Mormon coming from a conservative LDS background”
Jan 22, “Responses from Bishops and Stake Presidents about Public Support of Ordain Women and Same-Sex Marriage”
Additionally, the NYTimes article. Where do you think they got their information?
Surely, you can see that Givens has SOME basis for his argument.
Mr. Patterson, I’m not sure you properly understand the fallacy of composition or its converse, the fallacy of division. I think you meant to accuse Evans of the fallacy of hasty generalization. This is a common mistake, but it undermines your argument, and by extension Dehlin, who posted your post on his public Facebook page as a response to Givens’ post.
Why is that a criticism? It's smart PR. The only way to get the Mormon church to change, it seems, is to expose their idiosyncrasies to the secular world.
'Smart PR' doesn't mean it's above criticism.
Steve Evans didn’t “insert” himself into the Peggy Fletcher Stack’s Tribune article. She has sought quotes from him before as a public commentator on Mormon things, and he appears to have simply responded to her e-mail seeking a comment on the latest Mormon media moment. Evans’ questioning of the emphasis on social issues is a question most directly aimed at the New York Times coverage. Laurie Goodstein’s Jan. 15 article emphasized the aspects of the Dehlin situation of interest to Times readers, the social rights issues, rather than those involving church teachings that Times readers don’t care about.
The point, John, was that Steve has publicly and privately to me expressed either ambivalence or offered open criticism about Mormon Stories and about John himself. The fact that I’ve talked with Steve multiple times about John and he’s all “meh” about it, but when Peggy Fletcher Stack comes calling he’s all of a sudden full of quotes and accusations was interesting to me.
I think Steve wanted to come across as a neutral observer offering a neutral opinion in all this, but he’s clearly not. And that’s fine, because I’m not a neutral observer either. Clearly, I’m in a defensive posture about John’s discipline. But let’s call a spade a spade here.
In fact, ‘smart PR’ IS the criticism.
Something can be “smart PR” and accurate at the same time, Jon.
Well done.
James,
I appreciate your call for empathy and kindness. It’s quite clear that all of us all along the spectrum of positions in this debate need more of that. Such calls have influenced me to soften my language and sometimes just shut up at points in this saga.
What is unclear to me is whether you or others who call for such empathy or kindness recognize any line at all that, when crossed, merits a critical response from others.
Nathaniel Givens has responded to what he believes are distortions of the record by John Dehlin. He has certainly not asserted his case on his own authority, choosing instead to proffer evidence in support, as have Greg Smith and others. Was it inappropriate to challenge John’s narrative? It might have been if one did so in an unnecessarily bitter or harsh way. But Givens did it with specific caveats in place that he sought understanding with Dehlin and bore him no ill will. Assuming it is fundamentally acceptable to make arguments against Dehlin’s narrative (perhaps you do not assume that?) it’s hard to imagine how Givens could have done it in a more level-headed way. He definitely took no cheap, ad hominem potshots. (By contrast, I found your post via a tweet today from Dehlin, in which he characterizes both Givens and Evans (again) as “apologists.” Do you think that’s a fair characterization of these two, James? It’s hard to see how fair-minded people would use that term to describe either one, and Dehlin does it having already been called out on it, which makes it look like a pot-shot, no?)
As for Evans, your post specifically characterizes his quote in the Trib as “criticizing” Dehlin. Is that a fair characterization? Evans is expressly speaking from his own experience. Based on that, he is skeptical of one of Dehlin’s claims. He goes no farther than that. (Perhaps you are referring more to your offline conversations with Evans than his Trib quote?) I’m confused as to why people feel Evans is out to get Dehlin. Evans doesn’t think it’s likely that members of the Church are typically called to church courts based primarily on support for gay marriage or women’s rights. You must agree that many, many other members would share that skepticism, which would of course be directly supported by Elder Christofferson’s statements to the same effect to the Trib yesterday.
So maybe it’s not Evans’ skepticism, but his need to “insert himself” into the conversation that bothers you. And yet, Dehlin appears to have gone so very much farther. Whereas Evans merely appears to have answered a reporter’s question (is that “inserting” oneself?) Dehlin appears to have whipped up a full-fledged media firestorm that tracks very closely with his view of events and portrays him with immense sympathy and the Church negatively. These stories suffer from no shortage of quotations from Dehlin.
In other words, when Evans responds to a question, in a way that appears critical of Dehlin, more sympathy is needed. When Dehlin affirmatively works the local and national press in ways that are clearly critical of his local church leaders, current church officials, and fundamental LDS truth claims, more tolerance of such speech is needed.
The takeaway, for me: The idea of asking Mormons to stand by Mormons is a two-way street. Those who call for conservative Mormons to accept and love Dehlin, warts and all, react negatively to calls for Dehlin to just settle down and tolerate with his leaders, with prophets current and past, and with hundreds of thousands of other Mormons, warts and all. Dehlin has done much in the last decade to work against the feeling of solidarity you seem to assume conservative Mormons should naturally feel toward him.
I don’t know how I feel about “keep it in the family” notions of dispute resolution in various in-groups. What I do know is what John Dehlin thinks about such notions. He long ago rejected them in the most dramatic way possible, and continues to do so. (And please, let’s not defend his strategies as “good P.R.” I take it those commenters taking this tack would not enjoy hearing defenses of Givens and Evans on the basis that their positions are just “savvy pro-Church messaging.”) The thin skin he and his allies have revealed in times of their own trouble suggests that perhaps he should have considered more conciliatory strategies when he began his movement.
"Additionally disappointing is the condescending way in which Givens insists he’s giving us the inside scoop in to the “real” reason why John faces excommunication, as if he has some special or privileged seat at the table that we do not have."
It seemed to me that Givens' "inside scoop" was nothing more nor less than the Stake President's _stated reasons_ for the disciplinary hearing, which appear to sharply differ from the reasons that John has taken such pains to portray. That he has taken pains to represent LGBT/OW issues as the prominent reasons for his disciplinary council can be shown by the fact that he omitted his Stake President's August 11, 2014 letter in which his Stakes President suggests that he is misrepresenting the nature of their conversations for public consumption. This is discussed here:
https://seesangelsinthearchitecture.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/john-dehlin-and-media-manipulation/
and here:
https://seesangelsinthearchitecture.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/more-evidence-of-john-dehlins-economy-with-the-truth/
and Givens' post makes this fairly clear in my reading of him. So we aren't really left to mind read too much, only to look over the evidence and conclude that he seems to have been deliberately privileging those reasons, and ignoring those which his Stake President thought were important. Frankly, I cannot agree to just sit by while someone slanders the Church through misrepresentation of the reasons for their disciplinary hearing. I think once they do that it become a duty to show, as charitably as possible, where they have misrepresented the process, its reasons, and justice.
Fascinating blog post, the thrust of which is, family sticks together. If they disrespect one of us, they disrespect us all. So who is my family? The Church and the present leadership who are calling John’s legitimacy as a member into question? Or is it John who calls the Church and its present leadership’s legitimacy into question?
I believe that his disciplinary council is evidence that the Church agrees with your premise.
James, it seems that you start with the premise that John is a helpless actor – simply following his honest conscience. The Church is ever and always the aggressor. Let me just say that I’m no stranger to criticizing the LDS Church. I’m in favor of it, when necessary. In this case however, I see a lot more going on.
Is this a local decision? Is SL involved at all? The media seems to take as fact that its SL. If so, what of all the others who support gay marriage and OW? Are they getting exed? If it is in fact a local matter, why is JD not saying so? If he didn’t call the NYT, who did? If he did, why would he do that? And what of all the past years when his public position was in favor of gay marriage (and more recently OW)? Why was it ok then, if not for this apparently new Stake President?
If I may, here a few reasons I think normally compassionate people are not giving John the benefit of the doubt. 1. For years he’s been an advocate for varying voices of the Mormon experience to be heard. Great. But, he’s also actively promoted individuals who make it a hobby to attach Mormons and the LDS Church as an institution. I love varying voices, I don’t trust hobbyists. 2. When Kate Kelly was going through this, she was firm in her conviction, but always adding how much she valued her membership, in a real deal, eternal salvation sort of way. John has made it clear that he is a firm non believer time after time. The honest seeker that existed when Mormon Stories began, is no more. At some point, even liberal, active, believing Mormons are not going to trust a very public voice who A. actively promotes against the LDS Church (that they value highly) and B. does not value his own membership beyond social stigma because he lives in Utah. At some point, even very open individuals are going to want to defend a people and a Church that they hold dear. Just my .02
This is pretty rich stuff. I feel like I'm reading The Onion. But apparently is it meant to be read with a straight face. impossible!
This is some pretty rich stuff here. Apparently it is meant to be read with a straight face though? I feel like I’m reading some bizarre version of The Onion. Can you really be serious?!
“I wish we weren’t so prone to rubbernecking church discipline.”
Let’s make one thing absolutely clear. The only reason there is any “rubbernecking” in the case of John Dehlin is because of his own actions. He went to the press. He (selectively) released his correspondences with President King. He is the one who let the narrative slide in the mainstream press that his disciplinary council is over his support of Same-Sex Marriage and Ordain Women. (Or was it for merely doubting and having questions? What I hear from Dehlin’s supporters isn’t always clear.) Dehlin had no compelling reason to go public with all of this stuff other than he wants a sympathetic public to back him up. He could’ve kept this entire affair private, but he didn’t. So he cooked up a nice self-serving narrative that makes him look good and the Church bad and ran with it to the press. (Let’s also remember that at any point Dehlin could’ve corrected the initial media reports that painted him as a martyr for gay rights and women’s ordination, so Patterson’s argument that Dehlin can’t be held responsible for the initial news reports because he didn’t write the headlines doesn’t fly.)
As such, because Dehlin went public with this, he is susceptible to public scrutiny. Compassion and empathy are fine and good, but as soon as Dehlin starts publicly making claims that can be fact-checked, all bets are off, and he’s susceptible to scrutiny. And when Dehlin’s claims don’t seem to jive with the available documentation, there’s no justification for becoming upset when people call him out on it.
Also, as Hales Swift pointed out above, Nathaniel Givens is not just making this stuff up. He’s basing his well-founded opinion on documentation Dehlin has made public. It just so happens that this documentation does not reflect well on Dehlin’s part, and so Patterson must deflect this with straw men arguments of his own!
Spot on! Please keep speaking truth to ignorance, Stephen Smoot!
Wow. Does the church pay all these guys to come from all around and defend the church whenever John Dehlin gets brought up? Or do all these guys regularly follow the Rational Faiths blog? Thank goodness we have so many strippling warriors on the Internet these days.
“I just wish we would stick together more. All of us.” Are you serious? John Dehlin’s facebook page, by its very nature, is designed to get people to take sides—his vs. those who don’t agree with him. He posts something controversial and then stands back and watches the fur fly. I only went there out of curiosity—I’m not on facebook myself, but his is public—and the only reason I went back was to see what happened next. He accuses people of being “obsessed” with him, but it’s like watching a train wreck. I am personally offended by John’s efforts to smear the church and lead others away. I see that even some of his former fans have seen through him and have parted company. If it’s publicity he wants, he certainly got it. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes.
Again, my argument was not that you don’t have the right to rubberneck John’s discipline. I am wondering aloud how Christlike it is to do so.
In the case of Evans, this post seems rather out of proportion to a brief quote in a single news piece, provided in response to a reporter’s question about a national news story. Many times more ink is spilled here on Evans than vice versa. The substance of Evans’ brief quote was to address the potential implications of the news story for himself and others who are outspoken about Mormonism. Addressing impacts for oneself and others seems pretty circumspect and appropriate. I wouldn’t characterize it as “rubbernecking.”
“I am wondering aloud how Christlike it is to do so.”
You’re wondering how Christlike it is to hold people accountable for their public claims?
Well, there’s a simple fix to this. If Dehlin doesn’t want public scrutiny, then he shouldn’t bring this sort of stuff out into the public. It’s that easy.
Irina, you’re free to judge someone based solely on your Facebook page. Personally, I’ve spent hundreds of hours with John, either on the phone, talking online or listening to his podcast. I have worked to get to know him as a person rather than judging him based on internet “soundbytes.”
I won’t judge you by your comment. I’m sure there’s much more to you beneath the surface. Might be nice if you gave John the same courtesy.
3 Nephi 11:29 “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.”
I am not judging John personally, for I do not know him, but I certainly have a right to judge the effect of his actions, which do indeed “stir up the hearts of men to contend with anger.” I stopped reading certain other LDS blogs for the same reason that I will stop reading John’s facebook page. While contention in the blogosphere does not make me angry or prompt me to respond in an uncharitable way, neither does it do anything to bring peace to my soul. If being a TBM is an insult—that is the impression I get from John and his followers—then I proudly plead “guilty.” I love this church and I love my Savior. I don’t have all the answers and neither does anyone else, but what I do have is a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. The things of the Spirit can only be understood BY the Spirit. I have felt that Spirit in unmistakable ways. I cannot deny it. That’s what beings peace to my soul. I wish the same for you.
We should be careful when blanket applying that scripture. It paints an impossible scenario for everybody based on the fact that there is great human diversity out there. If we take it literally and apply it everywhere, then church leaders both past and present are of the devil because of the contention and anger they have stirred up or shown, and indeed as are probably all of us at some point or another (whether intentional or not.)
My intention was not to make a “blanket” statement, to be applied everywhere, but only to point out why I dislike internet discourse that either demeans the intelligence of another or devolves into something that truly can be characterized as “of the devil.” I’ve seen both on John’s site. That scripture, to me, means that contention itself is of the devil — not necessarily the people themselves.
Does anyone know what these mysterious "other issues" are
"which appear to sharply differ from the reasons that John has taken such pains to portray." No they don't. Not at all. The Stake President spoke in general terms, or categories, without going into specific incidents. John spoke in specificity. The two accounts are not contradictory at all in that regard. The specifics that John Dehlin spoke of fall within overlapping categories named by the Stake President.
How do you know they've been "downplayed"? The Stake President refuses to speak on the record regarding the specifics of the "charges" brought against John'. How do you know that the specific charges themselves are not primarily social justice issues?
Ryan Bell,
Perfectly articulated sir.
Tom Grover Yes, they do. The Stake President listed five core concerns in his August 11 letter responding to Dehlin's letter claiming that the concerns were LGBT/OW and so forth: "Thank you for sending the letter from you and Margi. I fear that in my willingness to engage in a discussion on all of the issues that you chose to address during our lengthy conversations, the direction of my true concerns may have not been clear. As the letter I gave you states, I am focused on five core doctrines of the Church: (1) The existence and nature of God; (2) Christ being the literal Savior of the World and his Atonement being absolutely necessary to our salvation;(3) the exclusive priesthood authority restored through the Church; (4) The Book of Mormon as scripture and the revealed word of God; and (5) the governance of the Church by doctrine and revelation through inspired leaders." I would add emphasis to his use of "which you chose to address". It is clear that the Stake President has talked with him about those issues, but only because he brought them up. If the Stake President thought they were the problem, then he and not Dehlin would have brought them up himself, and here he says that the five issues are the most fundamental description of what his concerns are—all are doctrinal, none are social issues as Dehlin has represented. It is no wonder that he omitted this letter in his main document release.
Irina,
Totally agree!
Beyond the official letter, in other places John reported verbal conversations with the Stake President that, to him, indicated strong reasons behind the current movement. I suppose that since he sat in the room, and is reporting it, it is at least accurate of his perception of the chain of events and the principle issues.
The Stake President's letter that I cited was written specifically to clarify the misperceptions that were evident in Dehlin's written account of their verbal communications. I tend to think that the Stake President knows his own reasons for calling the counsel regardless of what topics John may have brought up in the course of their conversions in order to make sure they came up at all.
Rarely have I seen an author’s thesis get so thoroughly skewered as was done here.
And rightly so. The author seems to be arguing from a stance of “don’t criticize my friend!” He then attempts to shoehorn in several logical fallacies cribbed straight from Wikipedia into this unwilling scenario. His very argument implies that it cannot be okay to criticize Mr. Dehlin, but it is just and appropriate for him to criticize the church. This, when it was Mr. Dehlin who went public with his excommunication details, repeatedly and vociferously, in a variety of forums. This, when he was the one whose actions admittedly have led more people away from the church than have stayed. This, while granting Mr.Dehlin off the cuff license in speech that Mr. Dehlin and his kept intelligentsia would never grant a church leader.
The stake president is only protecting his tail just as I would as a member "called" to the position. Mormon Stories was my venue to seek refuge when I was conflicted by what the church released. Finding John's podcasts saved my life (literally) and my marriage when I asked my wife to watch the 5 Myths podcast. To question and to error for the matter is human, but we learn from our experiences. I simply cannot continue to blindly have faith in matters of eternal consequences that I'm now discovering to be false down to the core. The Mormon church says to build your house on a firm foundation, then when we question that foundation we are criticized for our efforts. The church was build on a house of cards and the PR nightmare they now face is coming down around them and it's only survival instinct to lash out when you know all is lost. The great apostasy is upon us and its only going to grow as more truths and knowledge is shared about the roots of the church and the gospel presented by Joseph Smith. I'm sad it took me 15 years to see the light after converting, but I now see things clearer than I ever have and I'm starting to see blue skies from my stormy past few months. Best wishes John.
Dehlin is already a public figure(long before the court of love)because he thought church issues should be discussed without fear. He is famous enough that even if he said nothing about the church court. It would of came out some other way. So John was smart about the news coming out on his terms. So he wouldn’t be misconstrued.
Congratulations on a well-expressed piece of wisdom here. You expressed it so well and in a way that no one can disagree. Something worthy of dissemination.