John Dehlin: The New Go-To “Critic” of Mormonism?
Remember when news organizations had to go with angry ex-Mormons when they wanted to make the Church look bad in their stories? No more! Now they have self-proclaimed active Mormon John Dehlin to turn to. He’ll obviously be happy to do what he can to throw the Church under the proverbial bus. I present you with this recent hot mess on ABC World News:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/mormons-present-face-ad-campaign/story?id=11407317
Way to go Johnny boy. Since the ABC folks were clearly looking for a Mormon-bashing troll, I suppose you were as good of a choice to play that role as anyone right?
Memo to John Dehlin: Next time a major news organization asks you to give an interview, JUST SAY NO. You aren’t helping dude.
Note: Yes, this post is a hastily written knee jerk reaction to the story. Feel free to set me straight if you think I am wrong for not being thrilled with this fiasco (or with anything Dehlin produces or touches for that matter).
Oh boy.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 1:10 am
Non-members, who witness Mormons like this reasoning about their faith, become increasingly convinced that Mormonism requires a very loose grip on reality.
Comment by Suspicious Minds — August 16, 2010 @ 1:21 am
Here are Dehlin’s actual quotes:
There’s certainly room for disagreement with these points, but I don’t think they qualify someone as a “Mormon-bashing troll.” (If they do, John certainly has lots of company in the bloggernacle.)
The annoying stuff is actually the reporter “paraphrasing” what John supposedly said. I’ll leave it to John to say whether or not he actually said those things. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that John’s whole deal is that Mormonism is a big tent that can and should accommodate a wide range of views. Given that, it’s hard to believe that some of the characterizations of what he is alleged to have said are accurate. Indeed, if his statements were were as juicy as advertised, the reporter would have doubtless been showing the actual clips instead of providing his own improved-for-the-nightly-news rendition of what John said.
Comment by Randy B. — August 16, 2010 @ 1:24 am
What on earth did you find so offensive with what he said?
The very fact that John is able to honestly express his views and still identify himself as an active member and not an ex-mormon is proof that the ads are true: you CAN be Mormon and have your own opinion. I think that this piece is a great thing for the Church–much better than making it look like the only ones who have different views are people who leave the Church. These ads are great–I don’t see the big discrepancy that John sees in my Church experience (my ward is VERY diverse). I love the Church and believe that the teachings generally ARE in harmony with what the ads portray. But I love the fact that John is willing to be honest and his opinion is totally understandable.
In essence, ABC filmed John Dehlin’s own new Church ad: I’m a liberal, I’m a blogger, I’m a Mormon.
Comment by Derrick Clements — August 16, 2010 @ 1:33 am
I’ve always been disappointed by the way most mainstream news orgs tend to ignore the angry Mormon perspective. Going forward, if anyone asks, I can just send them here for that POV, right?
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 16, 2010 @ 1:34 am
I think that is his best defense Randy (#3). The reporter paraphrases framed Dehlin’s views as more critical than the quotes actually showed.
However there is no denying that even in the longer quotes Dehlin is basically saying that the commercials do not depict how Mormons really are. Or worse, that these Mormons depicted are not way the Church wants them to be. In other words he is implying it is a deceitful campaign. If that isn’t traipsing into Mormon bashing troll territory I am not sure what is.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 1:41 am
BTW — I fully expect we will have a flood of comments from Dehlin’s hordes of anti-Mormon and disaffected Mormon pals who rush to this thread to defend him. I predict we’ll hit 300 comments by Tuesday.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 1:42 am
If the alternative would have been interviewing an exmo, I’m glad they picked John Dehlin.
Comment by Niklas — August 16, 2010 @ 1:47 am
But in fairness, Geoff, it’s almost certainly the case that someone at ABC ended up talking to John for some extended period of time and then excerpted 8 seconds of quotes. And the only example given of the disconnect between what the church does and what the church says in the PR campaign relates to working mothers. I’m sure before we’re done here, someone will have lined up (again) all the fun GC quotes on that issue. But whatever your position there, I don’t think John’s comment comes close to traipsing into Mormon bashing. Particularly given John’s express praise for the church’s campaign: “I think it’s fabulous. I think it represents in many ways the best impulses of the Mormon people,” Dehlin says. “It represents tolerance. It represents multiculturalism. It represents an empowerment of women, inclusivity.”
Comment by Randy B. — August 16, 2010 @ 1:51 am
Geoff,
I think the issue is that we have to account for the contingents of the church for whom these ads truly do not reflect their experiences in the religion. I mean, maybe you don’t know anyone for whom this would be the case, but the thing is — there are such people. In this way, John really gives voice to these people, who hear one thing in church every Sunday, or who hear one thing from general conferences, or who hear one thing from Ensign, and who are now seeing and hearing something different from this campaign which is aimed more at non-members than to members.
John gives voice to people who may have been attracted by the idea of these commercials (before the commercials were even dreamed) and then came to realize that their ward (or maybe the second ward they were in, or maybe the third) was drastically different.
Most importantly, John gives voice to these people even when the prevailing attitude may be that it’s dangerous to showcase these voices, because it seems “critical,” it fails to show solidarity, or it appears to throw the church under the proverbial bus.
…However, here’s the difference between “Mormon bashing troll territory” and what John is doing. Someone could take this dichotomy and then conclude, “This is only a trap. This is only for political aims.” But that’s not what John is doing. John is saying, “I have hope that this campaign represents a change in culture for all of us and is not just window dressing.”
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 1:53 am
Calling Dehlin a Mormon bashing Troll is not warranted by this, or any of the other things he does, in my opinion, and your characterization of his pals is worse, because now, anyone who defends him is automatically anti-Mormon or disaffected, right? Well, I’m neither, Geoff, and while I don’t agree with his statement that the ads are misleading (is he saying that these people are lying or that the church is lying???) I certainly support his right to feel that way and to take that position without being called some sort of traitor.
This kind of thing happens all the time in a community where people are fine with in-house criticism, but as soon as you criticize publicly you are castigated by your own. John is part of our community. He deserves our support even if we disagree with him. Holster your torches and pitchforks, and chill out.
Comment by MCQ — August 16, 2010 @ 1:54 am
Assuming the ABC news people didn’t make things up, I would be a little more concerned about what John Dehlin was not quoted as saying.
Contemporary Mormon doctrine and teachings about race? What, pray tell, are those? Adoption into twelve tribes?
Gender equality is a live issue of course. But apparently implying the Church _preaches_ against “individualism” is painting with a pretty broad brush, unless you conclude perhaps that any religion with a normative moral standard is anti-individualistic.
Comment by Mark D. — August 16, 2010 @ 2:00 am
If the alternative would have been interviewing an exmo, I’m glad they picked John Dehlin
I certainly am not. It is significantly more damning for an “active Mormon” to essentially call the campaign a lie than it would be to have an anti-Mormon say that.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 2:14 am
Randy,
The problem with extolling Dehlin’s “I think it’s fabulous. I think it represents in many ways the best impulses of the Mormon people” quote is that Dehlin is really saying: “I wish the Church and its people were really like this… but in reality they aren’t .” And of course that directly implies that ads are deceitful.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 2:18 am
The wording of this quote suggests the Dehlin believes that the Church hopes (if not “intends”) these ads will pave the way for a smoother Romney campaign. I guess that is one way to get people to vote for the other guy, but more to the point it sounds like a conspiracy theory and a subtle way to smear the church.
The general problem with Dehlin’s tone is that he doesn’t sound like someone who actually supports the Church _at all_, but rather like someone who hopes the entire Church will move in his more enlightened direction.
Certainly many people feel that way in private. Adopting that tone in public is controversial for very good reason – it suggests that the person concerned doesn’t have any loyalty to the church he is a member of. Loyalty doesn’t just mean “I hope the leaders of the church will repent and quit teaching these discriminatory and irrational doctrines”, it means expressing some indication that one believes the church one belongs to is an institution worthy of commanding loyalty and adherence in the first place, something more than a socio-cultural anomaly that one only feels a kindred feeling for by accident of birth or geography.
Comment by Mark D. — August 16, 2010 @ 2:25 am
MCQ: (is he saying that these people are lying or that the church is lying???)
That’s what I gather from it.
I certainly support his right to feel that way and to take that position without being called some sort of traitor.
I didn’t use the word traitor… I used “throw the Church under the proverbial bus”. See — it’s the nice way of saying it because I’m nice like that. No doubt you support my right to feel that way too.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 2:28 am
What kind of criterium is that? Is John Dehlin going to be the power that stays the heavens? I support your right to wring your hands over this article, but I won’t be expecting the Missouri to change course over it.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 16, 2010 @ 3:03 am
Geoff, my initial reaction to this was that you’re simply overreacting (but in good Mormon hypersensitive fashion!). The article really isn’t that bad. I think the claim that this PR campaign has anything to do with Romney is rather silly, and I wish John would’ve represented the Church’s current position on the role of women in a bit more nuanced fashion, but his stated hope that the campaign is “aspirational” (thereby suggesting there’s a disconnect between the reality portrayed in the ads and the reality of Mormon life on the ground for many, many Mormons) was well-stated and, I think, largely accurate.
But then I watched the video, and it does seem to portray John as having a more critical posture than the article does. This is a tad unfortunate. As has been stated above, the editing/selection of this particular footage, plus the reporter’s statements, perhaps make John come off more hostile than he otherwise would have come off.
Comment by Aaron Brown — August 16, 2010 @ 3:28 am
Geoff — I think you’re determined to be pissed at John no matter what. You’ve certainly got a right to if that’s what you want. But I don’t really see a point in it. John does not have a stake in supporting the Church in a status quo situation, particularly in the areas he disagrees with — bad treatment of gays, women and minorities as he understands them. He would like to see the Church move more in a direction of tolerance and an expanding role for those folks than he has seen in the past. Everything quoted here is consistent with that.
As to the idea that this has something to do with the Romney campaign, I think that’s an easy case to make, and it’s not a bad thing. It’s not that the Church particularly endorses Romney, so much as the Church is trying to counteract the casual anti-Mormonness that was so clearly manifest in response to the Romney campaign in 2008. It would be good, from the Church’s perspective, if there was a possibility that some little Mormon boy or girl could group up to be president. As of now, there are too many people who would actively vote against any Mormon of either party for that to be a possibility.
But what’s this “bus” that the Church is supposed to have been thrown under? Nothing he said damages the Church in any way. He said things that don’t give you warm-fuzzies about the Church. So what? There’s more than one right way to be Mormon. I was never asked to agree with every PR position the Church has taken to get my TR. Honest people can disagree.
It’s quite possible that someone of a more liberal bent than you watched what he said and thought “Hey! That guy sounds more like me than any Mormon I’ve ever seen before. I never thought so before, but, maybe, if he can be a Mormon, I could be a Mormon too.” That would be a good thing.
Comment by Blain — August 16, 2010 @ 3:42 am
I don’t read it that way at all. I read it as: “These ads are fabulous because they represent the best parts of Mormonism. I hope the ads will help these parts of Mormonism to grow.”
Does that imply there is room for improvement? Well sure. But if that is enough to qualify someone as an anti-Mormon troll, then you’ve just tagged a large swath of people with that label (like basically all of us).
It just seems to me that you’re having to work pretty hard to turn “these ads are fabulous” into “these adds are deceitful.” Now, given the video editing, I can understand how you got there. I just don’t think that initial reaction holds up when you look at what Dehlin actually said.
Comment by Randy B. — August 16, 2010 @ 7:20 am
I think abc unnecessarily tried to take something with a lot of context and nuance and reduce it down to a black/white controversy. As a former TV journalist, this kind of thing happens all the time — a reporter will have the story thought out in his mind and doesn’t deviate from that no matter what the interviewees say.
That said, I appreciate John’s candor and his final statement about how these ads are aspirational. And I greatly appreciate all the hard work John does to make Mormonism more open to diverse perspectives and people.
Comment by Chris — August 16, 2010 @ 7:28 am
I mostly blame ABC. They were going to say the Mormons are being deceitful no matter what. If it didn’t come from John it would have been somebody else. This was the story ABC wanted to tell.
Comment by Eric Nielson — August 16, 2010 @ 7:46 am
There was nothing in the John Dehlin’s interview on ABC that was not absolutely true. Perhaps those who are uncomfortable with his comments about the Church and this latest ad campaign should ask themselves why they feel so uncomfortable with a factual and verifiable assessment of the LDS Church in the wake of the Prop 8 fiasco
Comment by Bary Wilson — August 16, 2010 @ 8:36 am
Geoff, yeah, this is overreaction on your part. Dehlin isn’t throwing the church under the bus at all.
Last week Adam Greenwood posted criticism of the church’s ad campaign on two different blogs. Perhaps you just didn’t see it, but if you had, would you have also reacted to Adam this same way?
Comment by Mark Brown — August 16, 2010 @ 8:48 am
sigh
Comment by John C. — August 16, 2010 @ 8:50 am
People above have characterized John Dehlin as throwing the Church under the bus, or an angry Mormon, or whatever, but no one has characterized his comments as wrong.
The reality is that no matter how hip people are dressing in these ads, if you are “fully in” the Church, you are expected to wear a white shirt and tie, have a short haircut, an appropriate number of earrings, no tattoos, no facial hair, etc. In general conference, or really on the stand of 99% of Church meetings, you could almost stamp out a clone picture of the “expected” look.
The reality is that women are still extremely restricted in the leadership roles that may have, and any decision they do make can be overturned at any time by a man. And our YW are taught (the majority of the time) skills to be “mothers”. We preach “the mother’s place is in the home”, etc.
The reality is that until not too many years ago, blacks were told they were inferior, fence-sitters, etc.
All of the above are not necessarily bad things, to be honest, but trying to portray the Church as something it is not smacks a bit of dishonesty to me as well. Rather than some slick ad promoting diversity, the Church would do more for its image if the leaders in General Conference actually showed diversity in what they wore. Rather than some ad about a working mother, the Church would do more for its image if it revamped the YW program to teach life skills as opposed to motherhood skills.
This is what John is getting at: these ads are great ideal if that is where the Church really wants to go. If it doesn’t really want to change, however, these ads are completely deceiving.
Comment by Mike S — August 16, 2010 @ 8:54 am
I agree with John Dehlin. The Church clearly has an image problem that it has created for itself. Hence the need for this campaign. It’s promising that it is trying to “broaden the tent” – or at least appears to be moving in that direction wiht these adds. Maybe it’s time that members (such as Geoff J) who seem uncomfortable with “non-mainstream” assessments from “non-mainstream” members broaden their own tent of inclusivity. What do you say Geoff? Can you handle a different opinion from a different sort of member? Isn’t that the point, or did you miss it?
Comment by Josh — August 16, 2010 @ 9:07 am
Josh, et al.,
Somehow, I grew up in the church thinking that we already had a big tent. So, these ads don’t seem like a PR campaign to me (although they clearly are); they seem to be describing the actual church. I apologize, on behalf of the church, if that fails to justify your angst and if that fails to accord with your experience.
It’s 8 frickin’ thirty in the morning and you people have already made me tired. Meh.
Comment by John C. — August 16, 2010 @ 9:22 am
As to this being a “knee-jerk reaction” I’d agree, especially with the “jerk” part. If you really have such ill will toward John Dehlin, why not be man enough to take it up with him face to face?
Besides, as far as I can tell, all of Mormonism is “aspirational.” I’ve never thought that the church should lower its aims simply because none of us manage to reach the ideal.
Comment by Mark B. — August 16, 2010 @ 9:27 am
Why doesn’t anyone think that these ads are really meant to help Harry Reid’s upcoming campaign?
I agree that the editing really sets a tone that is more critical than John’s actual statements. I know John and he’s very fair and balanced about these things.
I do object to the general idea that the Church is always suspect, guilty until proven innocent, a political conspiracy, etc. Count me as one who never felt like the Church has ever attempted to regulate my behavior. I’m a long-haired, heavy-metal-listening Mormon guitar player who might believe in reincarnation, who married a sorority president and member of N.O.W. in the temple (with a private ring ceremony for her non-member family afterward). I have never once ever felt like the Church tried to regulate any of these things.
This is because the church in Kentucky is more true than the Church anywhere else.
Comment by Syphax — August 16, 2010 @ 9:33 am
To be frank, the ads are at best hypocritical. I am not commenting on Church doctrine or any particular gospel teaching.
These ads are asking non-members to judge the Church and its general membership by portraying certain selected members. Now, recall that “do not judge the gospel or the Church by any individual member” is a dictum we have been taught from the pulpit and lay LDS society over and over again. It is a bit hypocritical of us to say on the one hand “look at these people and judge the Church by them” while in other, less-savory instances, we almost scream, “do not look at these people and do not judge the Church by them.” When using people’s actions and lives as a judgement standard, you must take the good and the bad, for better or worse.
Look at the ads themselves, who is in them, etc. Are those common LDS people? In my experience in wards and stakes across the US, they are not. Rather than selecting “common” Mormons with “common” Mormon sensibilities, which a great many non-members would find out of touch with the 21st century, the Church purposefully selected outliers. The people are real enough, perhaps their experiences are real enough, but they are not the “common Mormons” to be sure. But, how many of those “ordinary” Mormons would face a certain level of disdain from the general membership on the day to day level because of how they choose to live? From the ads I have seen, all of them would suffer a lack of acceptance on the social level, and sometimes the doctrinal level, because of the very actions and words portrayed.
So, to those of you critical of John’s comments on ABC — just remember that when asking outsiders to judge the Church by its members, for every person who can be judged as “positive,” there is another who can be judged “negative.” Just to choose political voting records as an example — for a certain Harry Reid, there is a Mitt Romney. For a certain Orrin Hatch, there is a Tom Udall. (I leave it to you to choose who is positive or negative, and what that would say about member attitudes–)
If this is the course they choose, then the GA’s and the members must accept the “good” with the “bad.”
Comment by Brad S — August 16, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Geoff,
This doesn’t appear to be going the way you wanted it to. John has his faults, but what you’ve cited are not among them. You’ve demonstrated that you entirely miss the point. Good luck with that righteous indignation thing you’re working on, though.
Comment by Clay — August 16, 2010 @ 10:17 am
I don’t disgree with Geoff, but wowzers, this seems like the wrong way to respond.
Comment by Cynthia L. — August 16, 2010 @ 10:19 am
The article, IMO, was not bad. I do agree with Geoff that it’s always best to avoid these types of interviews because one is not being interviewed so much as being set up as a patsy or puppet. But I am not very trusting of the media. They are certainly never impartial, and I would expect my comments to be taken out of context, misunderstood, and twisted.
The Romney connection was what prompted anyone in the media caring about this in the first place; it wasn’t John’s invention (although the article didn’t make that clear). It’s basically a fluff piece, but add politics (and imagination) and it becomes more hard-hitting. There were paranoid articles already published accusing these new “ads” as paving the way for Romney in 2012. Doubtless that’s why the reporter got the green light to do this.
I’m not sure I share John’s cynicism of the accuracy of the portrayal of average Mormons here. I do experience this kind of diversity at church. I don’t live in a highly insular Mormon community and I was raised where Mormons are as rare as hen’s teeth, so that could be why. My own criticism of the ads is that they are often speculative and inaccurate in answering the tough questions, and the MTC employees who are reviewing for accuracy don’t seem to know the difference. Even John’s comments about the church’s stance on women feel dated to me. I haven’t heard open condemnation of women working for a while, but I do have the very useful skill of not hearing things that are ridiculous.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — August 16, 2010 @ 10:19 am
My take? Dehlin especially blows it by feeding the idea that the Church is doing this to help a Mitt Romney presidential run. He simply has no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, but the charge of duplicity is duly noted.
Comment by Dwight — August 16, 2010 @ 10:19 am
i just watched the story again, and i was struck by what the lady from the church said, that being that we are a big tent.
frankly, that is the most deceptive point of the whole exercise. skateboarding and having unique jobs does not a big tent make. fancy pr may chance superficial perceptions, but it doesn’t get to the root of mormonism or the culture of the church today. sure, there are diverse backgrounds, but there is a pretty rigid formula for what makes a mormon when it comes to theology, practice, and ideology.
a big tent means diverse perspectives on mormonism, and that is only beginning to take shape in cyberspace, not in the chapels.
Comment by Chris — August 16, 2010 @ 10:23 am
“JUST SAY NO”? Seriously.
John’s response to the ads was exactly the right. The ads are contrived and dishonest.
John spoke his mind — just as he should.
My vote is for “JUST SAY YES.”
Comment by Swearing Elder — August 16, 2010 @ 10:23 am
I will think we are the “big tent” that the Church seems to be espousing the day that a bishop feels comfortable wearing a non-white shirt on the stand or the day that a RS president has 2 pairs of earrings or a young adult gets a tattoo without someone looking down their nose at them as being on the way to “apostasy”.
I will think that the Church has an inclusive “big tent” for our LDS and non-LDS friends the day that they change the US policy (not doctrine) to match the rest of the world and let a couple have a civil marriage to include ALL of their friends and family, then go to the temple to be sealed.
I will think the Church truly cares about doing charity work for everyone in the “big tent” when they spend more than $10-20 million a year in cash on humanitarian needs while spending $2-3 billion on a mall.
Ads are great. Actions are even better.
Comment by Mike S — August 16, 2010 @ 10:45 am
I think we need to have a Scott B. moderated John Dehlin/Geoff J fight cast. Go!
I like the new commercials, and was bummed by John’s response to them over at Mormon Matters from about a week ago. I feel like he is arguing with the church from 30 years ago. I am more bummed by ABCs use of John’s material.
I do hope everyone takes the opportunity to put a profile up at mormon.org. Mine’s pending approval.
Comment by Matt W. — August 16, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Morning everyone. A few brief response:
Clay (#32): This doesn’t appear to be going the way you wanted it to.
Actually it’s going just as I expected. A couple of people timidly agreeing with me. A few DAMU d-bags rushing in to gleefully call the church and the campaign a big lie, and lots of other stuff in between.
I did forget though that when one plays as rough as I started things here most people prefer to lurk rather than jump in so the 300 comments by Tuesday may not happen. People don’t like slam pits as much as they like a nice mostly-safe tightly-packed mosh pit.
Cynthia L (#33): I don’t disgree with Geoff, but wowzers, this seems like the wrong way to respond.
It certainly isn’t a very Mormon way to respond is it? The traditional Mormon response would be the restrained, demurring criticism. I figure my response can serve as an object lesson to show that the Church really is a bigger tent than some want to admit and that people who prefer a more direct approach to these things can be Mormon too. (grin)
hawkgrrrl (#34): it’s always best to avoid these types of interviews because one is not being interviewed so much as being set up as a patsy or puppet.
Word. And Dehlin seems to relish being some sort of perma-patsy for people who want to attack the Church as far as I can tell.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Matt Bowman’s article, “Toward a Theology of Dissent: An Ecclesiological Interpretation” (Dialogue 42:3, Fall 2009) seems relevant here.
Comment by Christopher — August 16, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Matt Bowman is always relevant.
Comment by Chris H. — August 16, 2010 @ 11:17 am
I think that Mike S. had a good point in his first paragraph.
One may say that the church does not frown upon working women anymore. And I would say that is true. However, the mold for men and women in the church is still very rigid. I wonder, is the church’s tent big enough to let in men and women who choose not to have children, or not to get married, and celebrate their choice? Not yet.
From my personal experiences as a liberal Mormon, most members have a long way to go in accepting diversity.
I recently have been removed from the facebook friend list of many of my active Mormon friends and family because I actively support Obama and social democratic ideals.
If any of you are liberals and you live where most active Mormons are able to discuss your political ideology without passing negative judgement, I would like to know what ward you are in!
Comment by Beth — August 16, 2010 @ 11:35 am
I don’t think that John’s interview was the wisest thing to do, but I don’t think that publishing “knee-jerk reaction[s]” is any better.
I find it fascinating how many people say that the only “big tent” they’ll recognize is the one that includes their own agendas.
As a person in advertising, I’d wager the Church’s ad campaign is primarily and specifically geared to demonstrate that we are mainstream people, not the FLDS, which purpose seems quite fulfilled. I highly doubt that other motivations (prop-8 backlash counters, trying to look all-inclusive or to further Romney’s campaign) played much of a part.
And as a single mother who has always had to work, I disagree that the people used are fringe. I think they are showing what real LDS people look like. That is separate from how we preach the ideals, and demonstrates how those ideals should be applied to individual situations. Even the oft-quoted and oft-denigrated Proclamation to the World points out clearly that there are differing applications of the ideal.
Comment by SilverRain — August 16, 2010 @ 11:36 am
What I dislike most about these ads is that they reinforce my self-image as a nerd. I don’t do cool things like surf and skateboard, and my job isn’t as fun as most of these people’s.
On the other hand, to be more “true” for some of the commenters on this thread, I guess the Church could have a bunch of ads saying “I’m a self-righteous, insufferable prig, and I’m a Mormon.” There’s at least ten people in my ward who could star in such ads (Luckliy for me, our bishop isn’t one of them).
Comment by CS Eric — August 16, 2010 @ 11:39 am
The other thing I wanted to say about the ads, yes, there are some “cool people” there, but there are also plenty of helmet-haired RS-pres types and stodgy fall-asleep-on-the-stand types (if you go to mormon.org and read through profiles). So, while it may feature outliers, and outliers are certainly the ones we notice the most, the stereotypes are there, too.
I do find it fascinating how widely different even those “stalwarts” interpret our religion. I’ve said it before – you can correlate the manual, but you can’t correlate the members.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — August 16, 2010 @ 11:50 am
I like a lot of the work John Dehlin has done but by his own admission he has had his own crises of faith even while working on mormon stories which affected his coverage of the church. He is very supportive of staying in the church, but often advocates a “third” way which involves staying in the church even though you don’t believe a large number of the foundational truth claims.
None of these things make him evil, don’t get me wrong, people have crises of faith and I’m okay with that. They do, however, make him a bad self-proclaimed spokesperson for the church. I never know which John Dehlin I am getting commentary from–the one who loves the church he grew up in or the one who has waves of serious doubts about its doctrine, practices, and history.
Comment by Jacob J — August 16, 2010 @ 11:51 am
Silverrain: but I don’t think that publishing “knee-jerk reaction[s]” is any better.
I’ve read several books and studies that say the human mind is really bad at dealing with differences in scale. This comment of yours is supporting that idea. Me openly criticizing Dehlin on an obscure blog is not even in the same zip code as Dehlin calling the Church liars and their ad campaign deceptive on national TV.
And if it makes you feel better, after a night of sleep I feel exactly the same now about the subject as I did last night. So I suppose that means this post reflects my honest opinion on the subject rather than a knee-jerk reaction.
And as a single mother who has always had to work, I disagree that the people used are fringe. I think they are showing what real LDS people look like.
I completely agree.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
“If any of you are liberals and you live where most active Mormons are able to discuss your political ideology without passing negative judgement, I would like to know what ward you are in!”
Beth,
I live in the BCC 9th ward.
Comment by Chris H. — August 16, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
I think you’re confusing the standard face-to-face Mormon response with the true believer on the Internet response. Yours actually fits right in. But I guess you still have a point, because in that way you’re no different than non-Mormon Internet trolls.
Comment by Carson N — August 16, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Well, I don’t particularly think the ads are going to help much for changing the perceptions out there about Mormons. Die hard critics of Mormonism are just going to view them as sneaky, and people who don’t know much about Mormonism are just going to be baffled by the ads and wonder “why are you telling me this?”
I also am not particularly mad about Dehlin’s statements here.
However, I do kind of question whether it was useful for him to frame his remarks the way he did. Later in the clip, he declares his hope that the ads are “aspirational” and represent something the LDS leadership wants the Church to be.
Well John, if so, why then are you trying to shoot down the leadership’s attempts to do just that? Isn’t that a little counterproductive?
If nothing else, perhaps the ads will help change the way Mormons view themselves. If they manage that much, maybe they are worth it. But I don’t think the LDS membership was really the target audience of the ads.
Comment by Seth R. — August 16, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
Carson N: the true believer on the Internet response
Well that is right neighborly of you to come right out and declare yourself a DAMU troll. All y’all are the main ones who use true believing Mormon (TBM) as a slur of some kind.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
John C–I don’t know where you grew up but it wasn’t in any or the areas where I have been–Salt Lake, Utah County, Northern Utah, Deep South. The people portrayed in those ads are the exception, not the rule, and unless a woman was very SUCCESSFUL in her career and visible in community– thereby giving the Church positive PR—AND HER KIDS WERE ALSO MODEL CHILDREN, her working outside the home would be viewed unfavorably.
Some of those women on mormon.org are a far cry from Ezra Taft Benson’s “women come home from the laundry” 1987 talk at BYU. That was it; if you were working at the laundry or the 5&10, you should be home but if you were Marie Osmond or Jayne Clayson–both divorced and remarried–the Church was happy to have you be the face of Mormon women. I speak in the past tense because the past is still the present. Julie Beck’s 2008 General RS meeting talk reminded women of that. Fortunately, I’m an old woman who no longer cares what Julie Beck or anyone else thinks I should be.
Alex Boye’s profile–he’s one of two Black Tab Choir members and he was born in Great Britain, so I can’t refer to him as African American–answers a question about Blacks and the priesthood in a way that shows that either he’s greatly uniformed about the church’s history or he’s just chosen to overlook it–his right, but certainly not an accurate portrayal. Saying that most churches have discriminated in the past doesn’t explain why the church that claims to be God’s only true church led by direct revelation, discriminated too.Oh..and found additional reasons to do so in its unique doctrine of the pre-existence.
By the way. Is there a “I’m gay and I’m a Mormon?” I don’t know, I’m asking. There could be.
Comment by Martine S — August 16, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
Seth,
I think the Church realized that large swaths of Americans think immediately of Amish costumes when they hear the word Mormons. If the ad campaign squashes just that simple misconception it is doing some good for the image of Mormonism in the US.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
clearly you have no idea what a troll is, or what they do. here’s a profile of a real troll: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html. a troll is a person who will say or do anything just to elicit a response. any kind of response.
what separates john from trolls is that he is sincere. whether or not you agree with what he’s saying, there is no doubt that he says what he does to give disaffected members a voice.
and ABC was right to reach out to someone – anyone – from the mormon church to get an different viewpoint. it’s what responsible reporters do. otherwise it wouldn’t be a news story, it would have been a one-sided mormon lovefest that people find thoroughly disinteresting.
the bottom line is this story ended well for both believing mormons and disaffected mormons. if they had picked some crackpot ex-mo for the opposing side, it would have dinged the credibility of disaffected mormons. not only that, but angry ex-mormons are great at floating theories that the wary public love to cling on to.
so i don’t get it – how was this interview a bad thing?
Comment by Unorthodox Mormon — August 16, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
It does look like ABC put a spin on what John Dehlin really wanted to say. If you pay attention to what Dehlin says regularly, you’d realize that he is really committed to the church and making it better, just in ways that traditional members may disagree with. The commentary and the small clips on this news piece really do give off that vibe of “here’s a guy who’s gonna tell you why the church is evil and wrong!”
Oh I already knew before commenting here, Geoff, that you considered me and people like me to be sub-human. You kicked off the name calling from the very beginning. I’m just joining you in the mud that is this blog. No love lost.
Comment by Carson N — August 16, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Martine S,
This isn’t the thread to air your laundry list of gripes with the Church. Stay on topic please.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Am I mistaken, or is this exactly what Geoff J. fears? We do not want people to join the Church and think that they can say less positive (or negative) things about the Church to the press.
If (1) a person believes that the ads do not accurately reflect their experience in the Church, or do not accurately reflect messages from general conference now or in the past, and (2) that person is willing to make such a statement to the press, then (3) it would be better for them to leave the Church and join RFM.
************************
The above (“love it or leave it”) are the way I read Geoff’s comments (with all respect Geoff). I doubt that Geoff actually means that, and thus I think taking a few breaths would be helpful.
Comment by DavidH — August 16, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Unorthodox Mormon (#55),
Your point is well taken. I knew troll was not really the right word in the post. I initially was using “Mormon-bashing douchebag” but realized that this audience probably wouldn’t go for that. So I settled on an improperly using “troll” instead.
The interview is a bad thing because Dehlin attacked the Church and did it from the purported viewpoint of an insider. With friends like him who needs enemies?
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Dehlin “says what he does to give disaffected members a voice.”
Dehlin may or may not see it this way, but he’s certainly become the (unwilling?) prophet and spokesman of the disaffected and the exmos who want the Church to change to fit *their* views. I’m opposed to guilt by association, but if he doesn’t want to be seen to be pushing their non-believing critical agenda to demonize and deMormonize the Church, he needs to stop letting himself get used this way.
Comment by Billybob — August 16, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
DavidH,
“Love it or leave it” is a loaded phrase and it is almost always abused. Therefore I would never use that particular phrase. However Mark D does make a cogent point in his #15.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
Geoff, I apologize. You did not use that phrase. Have I otherwise misconstrued your position?
Comment by DavidH — August 16, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
Carson N: Oh I already knew before commenting here, Geoff, that you considered me and people like me to be sub-human.
Hehe. Nice use of the victim card.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
DavidH,
Sorry, I was hoping that by pointing to comment #15 I had answered that question. Yes there is a point where one believes the Church is broken beyond one’s ability to repair it. Dehlin clearly believes the Church is completely broken but he seems to have an unusually elevated view of his ability to fix it.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Geoff, I was asking if you would rather that John (and his supporters) quit the Church and if you hoped that no one like them ever joined the Church in the future. I hope your answer is that, as much as you think John (and those who agree with him) are wrong and unhealthy for him or the Church, you continue to be glad that the Church tent is wide enough to encompass him.
Comment by DavidH — August 16, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
I lean towards #15 as well but I would like to hear from John before I pass judgement on the majority of his comments. The press has an ability to protray a commentator’s comments by selective editing.
The only bone without further comment from John is that there is no way the church is pushing the Romney 2012 campaign. Dehlin knows that so I am wondering if he is misquoted or if he is not misquoted why he would attempt to fuel obviously false conspiracy theories
Comment by bbell — August 16, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Billybob, if by deMormonize you mean to get rid of bigotry, lies, sexism, homophobia, and the destruction of families over belief issues, then I guess John Dehlin really is trying to do just that. Funny how the people who left over those issues actually agree with someone who is trying to change things.
But that’s not even the whole picture. You don’t seem to realize that John is not only taking flak from the traditional believers, but also from bitter ex-Mormons. He is pretty much hated on both extremes.
I and others like his approach because he sees a lot of good in the church (as do I), and he has made very noble and successful efforts to bridge the gaps between the two sides, especially when it comes to believing members married to disaffected spouses. There are many saved marriages that have John Dehlin to thank, and not because he got them both out of the church.
Comment by Carson N — August 16, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
The interview is a bad thing because Dehlin attacked the Church and did it from the purported viewpoint of an insider. With friends like him who needs enemies?
So what you’re saying basically is that JD can not be an individual with his own individual thoughts? That being on the “inside” he should conform and be a good little boy and not say anything against the Church?
I thought the PR Campaign was all about individuality “inside” the Church?!? But here you are calling JD out for voicing an individual thought.
Are you a hypocrite??? Just curious.
Comment by Guy — August 16, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
I have a lot of respect for John and I am certain he was trying to do the right thing and be excited and complimentary of the church for the new ads and the new image. But, you’ve got to admit that you are probably not going to find Josh becoming the “Skateboarding Bishop” anytime soon.
ABC News clearly spun his comment the way they wanted the story to come out. It is only pure luck they didn’t go to the Journal of Discourse for a comment on the ads…..
those who comment against the Church time after time are just going to complain no matter what.
The ads reflect real people I know in the Church and real life, for that matter.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 16, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
#68: So what you’re saying basically is that JD can not be an individual with his own individual thoughts?
Oh good grief. No I’m not saying that. Get a grip. And again, see comment #15.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Jeff Spector: But, you’ve got to admit that you are probably not going to find Josh becoming the “Skateboarding Bishop” anytime soon.
Maybe, maybe not. I skateboard regularly and have been in a bishopric.
Part of the problem might be that the pre-conceived ideas about what Mormons are really like are probably stronger in the Church than they are out of it.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
Carson, I’ve never seen Dehlin take flak from the ex-Mormon community.
Usually he’s used as a citation by unhinged far out there ex-Mormons when they want to pretend that they are being balanced. I’ve heard very little criticism about him from that side.
Comment by Seth R. — August 16, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
so it seems like the core of the issue if john’s credibility – ie he has more credibility than a disgruntled, conspiracy-spinning ex-mormon and therefor might do more damage.
that goes back to my current statement – is that a bad thing? a lot of non-mormons assume we have this totalitarian culture that shuns any kind of dissent. wouldn’t the fact that john can be a faithful member and disagree with the church give credence to the notion that mormons are normal people with varying opinions?
Comment by Unorthodox Mormon — August 16, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
I agree with #73. I don’t agree with everything John appears to be sayiing, but I’m glad he’s saying it because it shows an active Mormon can have diverse, even critical views and still be believing. I think it says good things about us and we should be welcoming and supportive of this kind of thing, especially from someone like John (who is really an unselfish, sincere, smart, hard-working guy in my opinion).
Geoff, I do support your right to have your view too, but in this case, I think your wrong-headed attack on John is worse than his wrong-headed criticism of the Church.
Comment by MCQ — August 16, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
Geoff… You haven’t commented on my question to you.
You like the PR Campaign for portraying Mormons as individuals. And yet you attack John Dehlin for voicing his individual thoughts.
Are you being hypocritical?
Comment by Guy — August 16, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
I agree with MCQ and Randy. No one likes to hear their religion criticized, but Geoff’s ad hominem attacks against John Dehlin are pathetic and unbecoming.
And, as my three year old would say: not okay. You’re better than this, Geoff.
Comment by ECS — August 16, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Well MCQ I won’t deny that my criticism of Dehlin’s performance is certainly more intimate than his criticisms of Mormonism. But see my comment #48 about which is “worse”.
As for the arguments in #73; I suppose if y’all want to spin Dehlin’s performance as a double-reverse awesome PR move on his part then knock yerselves out.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Are my posts not showing up?
Comment by Guy — August 16, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
Guy (#75), I pointed you to #15 for a reason. Here is the relevant paragraph:
So no I am not being hypocritical. I have no problem with Dehlin having his opinions or with his right to express them publicly. However I am also free to express my own opinions and criticisms publicly.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
ECS: You’re better than this, Geoff.
Which part of my opinions do you find evil ECS?
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
I wish the same applied to my own opinions and criticisms. Alas, Geoff J sees fit to delete them.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 16, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
If it makes you feel any better I only delete the super inane and off topic stuff you write Peter LLC. Feel free to do the same to me on the posts you write.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Geoff, come on. Most people who have been around the MoArch block a few times know that you don’t particularly care for John D. or his work. I’ve found you to be an upstanding (but stubborn) guy in the past, and it’s beneath you to express your animus towards John in this very public, very petty manner.
Comment by ECS — August 16, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
re 72,
Seth, it’s understandable that you wouldn’t know, but I can assure you that Carson is correct — John definitely takes flak from a lot of exMos.
re 73, 74, 75, and in general
Let me try to (dis)till the issue.
I guess Geoff isn’t saying that there can be no individualism in the church or difference in opinion and thought from church members, but a member must establish credibility as a member and believer in order to do so. Part of this credibility involves a loyalty to the church that precludes airing out dirty laundry or doubts to a hostile public.
In other words, the takeaway (as far as I can tell) is this: “an active Mormon can have diverse, even critical views and still be believing,” but if such an active Mormon were to air these critical views in such a public way, we should doubt on whether he or she were active or believing in the first place because such an action is inconsistent with loyalty to the organization.
Or, in another way, wrt Jacob (re 47), an active Mormon can have doubts, but if he airs his doubts publicly, then his Mormonism should be doubted. An active believing Mormon would never be so imprudent as to speak publicly about his “waves of serious doubts about doctrine, practice, or history,” so one who does should not be accepted as an active, believing Mormon.
re 65 (wrt 15), I guess the takeaway is that it’s better/preferable/desirable that people for whom the church is “a socio-cultural anomaly that one only feels a kindred feeling for by accident of birth or geography” to stay in the church, but these people should never be confused for active, believing members. If you are in such a situation, get a testimony, become loyal, stay quiet, or deal with members (dis)trusting you.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Geoff, to the extent that antis can use this post and comments as evidence of a hyper-loyal, borg-like Mormon culture, as Andrew did in #84, I think that well illustrates my concern that the “medicine” of this post is perhaps worse than the “disease” of Dehlin’s bizzare and unfounded comments to ABC. Though, I concede the point that there is a huge huge difference in prominence of the venue.
Comment by Cynthia L. — August 16, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
No, Cynthia, clearly, communities *need* loyalty. They need boundaries. It’s understandable that Geoff wants to preserve and maintain those boundaries so that his community isn’t overrun with people who do not share or appreciate the ideals, the tradition, or the history. And it’s understandable that in the process, some people will have to realize — however painfully — that the communities is not theirs individually, and that there are expectations that must be met in order to be welcome in a community.
This isn’t a Mormon thing. It’s a human thing. It’s not evidence of anything bad. it’s evidence of something that is *necessary* for something good.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
#39:
Oh god, no. We don’t need a 14-part retrospective leading up to the smackdown. Just fight already.
Comment by Humboldt's Gift — August 16, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
#87. If he does another one of those awesome bumper music montages, I’m all for it.
Comment by Syphax — August 16, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
ECS,
One need not be a bloggernacle regular to know I am not a fan of Dehlin’s projects — I said that right in this post. So it seems to me that my criticism of him for this interview is in fact entirely consistent with my openly stated views. You are free to disagree with my views on him, but I don’t agree that it is petty to call him out for his blatant disloyalty to Mormonism.
Of course I must now note that I have argued recently that loyalty all by itself is not a virtue. For instance it was not virtuous to have been loyal to the Nazi Party in the 20th century. But since I believe that the Church is guided by and approved of by the true and living God I do think that John’s blatant and public disloyalty to the Church is worth of some public criticism by me. That’s why I wrote this post.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
So no I am not being hypocritical. I have no problem with Dehlin having his opinions or with his right to express them publicly. However I am also free to express my own opinions and criticisms publicly.
Then I don’t get it.
You say yes to the Church for promoting individuality in the Church.
Then you say no to someone who voices his individual thought.
Maybe I’m just not as smart as you are Geoff, but that’s hypocritical to me.
Comment by Guy — August 16, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Andrew: This isn’t a Mormon thing. It’s a human thing. It’s not evidence of anything bad. it’s evidence of something that is *necessary* for something good.
I agree. And I agree with your comments in #84 as well. (I didn’t take away the insults Cynthia saw there)
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
re 90
There’s no problem with Dehlin having his opinions or having a right to express them publicly.
But someone who would *exercise* such a right to express such opinions is not being very prudent regarding his membership and his faith
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Maybe I’m just not as smart as you are Geoff
Probably not. But I won’t hold that against you. See comments 84-86.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
There’s no problem with Dehlin having his opinions or having a right to express them publicly.
But someone who would *exercise* such a right to express such opinions is not being very prudent regarding his membership and his faith
I really don’t think you get it.
If the Church promotes individualism through its PR campaign, great. But you can’t applaud the individualism in the PR campaign and then turn around and say that someone who claims to be active should not voice his individual thought if it questions the Church or the leadership.
By doing so, YOU lose all credibility.
Comment by Guy — August 16, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
re 94:
Guy, the problem is…whose credibility is being lost and with whom? Clearly, if John is gaining credibility with ABC but is losing credibility (or at the very least, not increasing is (dis)mal lack of credibility with people like Geoff who are big names in the bloggernacle), then what does it profit?
Clearly, there is a nuance to individualism, and how that individualism can be reasonably expressed in a public (vs. private) context. Confusing or failing to recognize that nuance doesn’t mean that those who are attuned to it have lost credibility or are hypocritical. It means that you are not operating in the same context as the rest of the community and so you really have no place to be talking about credibility in the first place because you are an outsider.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
Many would say that if a church needs to mount an ad campaign to convince people that it its membership is diverse (or even normal), then you can bet that said membership, on average, is probably not.
As case in point is a pretty much identical campaign mounted by the Church of Scientology to try and convince others that it is not a dangerous cult. An example of an “I’m a Scientologist” ad can be seen at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs3Kje7EsYQ
Members who support the latest Mormon ad campaign should consider the Church that the Mormon leadership has (intentionally or de facto) chosen to emulate in this gambit.
Comment by Bary Wilson — August 16, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
The paradox of insider criticism is that neither fellow insiders (who are not critics) nor fellow critics (who are not inside) like you. To answer Seth R.’s question in 72, John D has been criticized as frequently by ex-Mos and the RFM crowd as he has been criticized by those inside the church who find him disloyal. He is criticized by both groups for being somewhere along the continuum between disingenuous and quixotic.
Certainly John is a passionate idealist. And insider criticism is the only kind that ever makes a difference in the church. Outsider criticism is immediately dismissed (which is how it works in almost every community), as is frankly most insider criticism. Selective praise, while being unquestionably loyal, doesn’t seem to effect much change. As the ad campaign implies, some change is necessary. I’m thrilled we are giving the mic to so-called outliers and clearly embracing more diversity than we have in the past. To me, that’s progress. I also have it on good authority from discussions elsewhere that this campaign is intended not only for investigators but for members as well. I find that surprising but encouraging.
Personally, I think we are foolish to give either too little or too much credence to what critics (whether inside or outside) have to say. We need to have a strong sense of identity, but be aware that we also have flaws that can be improved. We are still human beings with room for improvement. Everyone has opinions about things. We should listen well and act very carefully.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — August 16, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
While I wouldn’t state it quite as strongly as Andrew S., I think John definitely exceeded the limits of loyalty. If he were an NBA player and expressed his dissatisfaction with the team that way, not only would it be big news, but it would definitely create fissures between him and his teammates. If he were a public persona and spoke about his wife this way, you can bet that marriage was on the rocks. Could it create healing? Maybe, but more likely it’d get him traded or allow him to move on to his next marriage.
Comment by Martin — August 16, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
#96: if a church needs to mount an ad campaign to convince people that it its membership is diverse (or even normal), then you can bet that said membership, on average, is probably not.
Cogent argument FAIL.
Lots of organizations have used this approach because it can be effective. The fact that Scientologists have done some of it too is moot. Ever hear of the “I’m a PC” campaign?
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
Agreed, but I would say from my personal experiences that JD doesn’t know how to carry out internal criticism. Going on ABC doesn’t fit the bill. Neither does giving voice and a platform to bitter exmos and apostates.
Comment by Billybob — August 16, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
Lots of organizations have used this approach because it can be effective. The fact that Scientologists have done some of it too is moot. Ever hear of the “I’m a PC” campaign?
As a Mac user, and given the Vista disaster, I would have to say that you just made my point.
Comment by Bary Wilson — August 16, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Hehe.
You win this round Bary Wilson….
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Sometimes opposition from multiple angles doesn’t indicate that a person is right as much as it indicates they are off track for multiple reasons.
Comment by Dwight — August 16, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
re 103: but one can’t tell — just from the fact that a person is opposed from multiple angles, whether it means they are right or off-track. If you get big enough, you will have enemies all across the board. But being popular itself doesn’t discern between fame and infamy.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
When it comes to critiques of the Church I tend to favor the approach outlined by Armand Mauss. It seems to me John could greatly benefit from taking Mauss’s advice seriously:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/05/alternate-voices/
Comment by BHodges — August 16, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Who suggested otherwise, Andrew?
Comment by Dwight — August 16, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
re 106:
Since no one suggested the opposite (e.g., because John is hated on both extremes, he is right), it justed seemed premature to mention opposition on both sides could mean someone is off-track, Dwight.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Thanks for making explicit what my comment included implicitly then.
Comment by Dwight — August 16, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
Andrew S (#84),
Or, in another way, wrt Jacob (re 47), an active Mormon can have doubts, but if he airs his doubts publicly, then his Mormonism should be doubted.
I don’t see where I said anyone should doubt his Mormonism in #47. I said he is a bad spokesperson for the church because he is open about not believing a lot of the foundational truth claims and because his doubts sometimes color his coverage of the church (by his own admission). I further said that even as a person who has enjoyed his work over the years I never know where he is at personally so it is hard for me to guess at his motivation when he criticises the church.
Comment by Jacob J — August 16, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
102.Hehe.
You win this round Bary Wilson….
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Sorry, Geoff. Couln’t resist.
I’m sure there are examples that support your assertion. IMHO, however, the “I’m a PC” campaign is not one of them.
(Some discussion you have going here.)
Comment by Bary Wilson — August 16, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
If ABC is looking for an active Mormon, and we deem Dehlin to be a bad spokesperson for this role for reasons like “he is open about not believing a lot of the foundational truth claims and because his doubts sometimes color his coverage of the church,” then I don’t know what else we are supposed to doubt than his Mormonism.
At best, we end up with this situation where John and people like John should recognize that they are not as Mormon as people who really believe and who are loyal to the institution in public.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
“his blatant disloyalty to Mormonism”
I’ve raised five kids in the church, 35 years of temple marriage, yet I no longer believe in the church. I read and see John Dehlin’s articles and videos and I sometimes begin to rethink my activity. I read your article, Geoff, and I want to stay as far away from the church as I can.
Kim Farah can say the church’s tent is wide and large and all-encompassing. That is not the church with which I am familiar. It certainly is not the church of very much of its 180 years of existence.
Comment by Holden Caulfield — August 16, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
You are free to do whatever you choose Holden.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
Andrew,
I think the disconnect is with the terms you are using. Any person who is a member of the Church is Mormon. So there is no doubting “his Mormonism”. More specifically we are doubting his loyalty to Mormonism. But I’m pretty sure that is what you have been meaning all along.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
I’m sorry. I fail to see any controversy in his statements. How is it Mormon bashing to say that Church leaders tell women to stay home and tell the men they are in charge? How is it not good for a Romney presidential bid to make the public think Mormons aren’t oddballs? How is it bad to encourage Mormons to pay attention to their own PR department and think about how they align with public messaging? Isn’t all of that beyond obvious? o_O
Comment by Molly — August 16, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
But not your beliefs?
Comment by Billyboy — August 16, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Holden, I think the issue is that membership in the church ideally (at least in the minds of some) requires certain conditions…and these conditions may seem a sacrifice to some.
If your rethinking of activity is based on a perception that such a sacrifice doesn’t have to be made, then there are going to be people (one who make the sacrifice, have made the sacrifice in the past, or don’t even see accepting the status quo as involving a terrible sacrifice) who won’t be thrilled with that. If your options are either heretical membership or staying far away from the church as possible, the former doesn’t seem too promising.
Having people be members just to be members isn’t the ideal, especially if those people don’t believe and especially if those people acknowledge that they aren’t trying to believe in the status quo and really just want things changed.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
re 114,
good distinction, Geoff. Although I’m not so sure that Mormonism is an on/off switch simply predicated by whether one is a member or not. But that would be a different discussion. I guess “loyalty to” still captures what I’m getting at.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
Re #113,
Geoff, your loyalty is far more damaging to the Church than John Dehlin’s disloyalty.
Comment by John B. — August 16, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
Chris H.,
Where is BCC? I’ve gotta move there. If I could teach the YW that they don’t have to choose marriage if they don’t want to, or that social democracy doesn’t equate to Satanism, I’m there!
Do they let the women stand in on blessing circles and the Gift of the Holy Ghost? I’m trying to push that in my ward. No luck yet. Soon though, I hope.
Comment by Beth — August 16, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Snort! Keep tellin’ yourself that John B. (#119)
You act like I’ve murdered the guy or something. All I have done is criticize his interview. Big deal. If that is all it takes to drive some random readers here away from Mormonism then they were out the door already. Seriously, get a grip man.
(Also, what does comment #113 have to do with me or loyalty?)
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
Beth, BCC is here.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
I see many comments talking about and his position on the loyalty disloyalty continuum. I don’t see many comments about the point he was trying to make.
- The Church does have a history of issues with regards to women’s roles (including whether they should work outside the home, temple ceremony for decades pre-1990, banning them from praying in sacrament meeting, etc.) It is not doctrinal, but implied that a “woman’s role is in the home” in many cases.
- We do have an image of conformity. Just look at missionaries, or the BYU campus, or any general conference clip. Again, it is not doctrinal but in many wards, wearing a “blue shirt” is looked on by many as a sign that something is going on in your life.
- We may promote the “inner person” and not the outer, but for a kid to go to EFY, they have to have a conservative hairstyle and one set of earrings for the girls and none for the boys.
- Call it what you will, but from an outsider’s perspective, but we do have a history of non-traditional marriage yet spend millions fighting it.
No one is really arguing the point. Everyone seems to be attacking John for airing our “dirty laundry”. Ironically, the comments here support what he was hoping the Church would “aspire to” – rather than attacking someone for airing dirty laundry, perhaps maybe we could do the wash.
Comment by Mike S — August 16, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Mike S,
While the people in the commercials look fun and interesting I didn’t see anything there that said the Church prefers day care for children now rather than having a mother at home or that tattoos and numerous piercings are the new preferred Mormon fashion.
The commercials do tell a truth though — there really are all kinds of happy Mormons in the world and in the US who are interesting and fun people. So John was not right if he was saying “that is not really what Mormons are like”. Sure not all Mormons are as cool and interesting as the people in the commercials but big deal. That is how marketing always works.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
Martine,
Hi. I’m from the Deep South and I’ve lived a very long time in Utah Valley, though. Keep on truckin’, tho.
Comment by John C. — August 16, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
Re: 122
Thanks Geoff! I am a bit disappointed its not an actual ward.
Comment by Beth — August 16, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Yeah, I agree with you on that point, Geoff. John’s criticism seems to be that the ads are somehow deceptive because the people in them don’t fit a stereotype. Yet we all know (and some of us are) Mormons who don’t fit that stereotype. The people in the ads are real people who really are as they are portrayed (as far as I or John know). I don’t get what’s deceptive about presenting these people to the world to say that Mormons are not all of a type. There’s nothing deceptive about that in the least.
I think this would have been a much better post if you had just engaged John on these points and made it clear that he was just plain wrong, rather than starting a bunch of name-calling.
Comment by MCQ — August 16, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
As cited in the current Eternal Marriage Student Manual in the section on “Mothers’ Employment Outside the Home“, last updated in 2003.
That is what is wrong with the church running advertisements showcasing mothers working outside the home and sneering at traditional gender roles. When Cassandra Barney snorts at the idea that a woman’s place is in the kitchen, she’s snorting at her own leaders. The church encourages women to work outside the home and buck traditional gender roles about as much as it encourages tattoos and extra ear piercings. Yes, we can find Mormons who do these things in spite of the church’s teachings, but we can also find Mormons who have tattoos, drink coffee, and sleep around. Why not make them the focus an advertisement about the church’s diversity?
The church can showcase career women in its advertising when it actually starts supporting them and encouraging them in those roles. Until then, expect to get called on it.
For the record, I thought that the rest of the series was pretty tame and had few complaints about it being “misleading.” I think it would have been better if the people had talked about how the church had inspired them to live these interesting lives, but it was okay.
Comment by Ms. Jack — August 16, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
Ms. Jack,
First, are you mostly talking about this ad? Cassandra clearly does not work outside of the home. She has a home art studio. Further, she schedules her work around the children coming home. Is there some other ad you had in mind?
Second — quoting Spencer W. Kimball on this? Seriously? You do know he died in the early 80′s right? And that address you are quoting could have come from the 60s. The 70′s quote from Elder Benson is equally unimpressive. I assume you also know that Church policies and the opinions of Church leaders change over time right? If the current leadership of the Church is approving commercials with someone snorting at the idea that a woman’s place is in the kitchen (which I actually don’t see in the version I linked to but I too snort at that antiquated theory) then that means they have absolutely no problem with that idea. So she is not snorting at her current leaders, she is in a way revealing what they agree with.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
Mike S, bless you, baby.
Holden Caulfield, bless you, brother.
Comment by Maria Petrova — August 16, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
Geoff–seriously? You’re going to play the “dead prophet” card with Jack? Do you really want us to start trotting out General Conference quotations from the last 5 years that say exactly the same thing? Really?
Comment by Kristine — August 16, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
Geoff J. ~ First, are you mostly talking about this ad?
Partially. Cassandra Barney is the one who sneered at the idea that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and bragged about her husband’s cooking, though curiously enough, those remarks have since been edited from the version of her video available at Mormon.org. You can hear them still in the ABC video.
There were other ads which showcased mothers working outside the home: Helen Newton, Mia Love, and possibly Emily Sherinian and Kelly Lineback.
Second — quoting Spencer W. Kimball on this? Seriously? You do know he died in the early 80?s right?
Were the authors of the 2003 Eternal Marriage Student Manual aware that Spencer W. Kimball died in the 80s? Were they aware that the remarks by him and Ezra Taft Benson were given in the 60s and 70s, and that this apparently renders them irrelevant? If so, why did they include them in a manual intended for a 2003 audience?
And, more importantly, are you suggesting that the teaching manuals currently being released by your church and available at LDS.org are a poor source for a non-member to turn to when she wants to understand the current doctrine of your church? What other source would you recommend?
If the current leadership of the Church is approving commercials with someone snorting at the idea that a woman’s place is in the kitchen [SNIP] then that means they have absolutely no problem with that idea.
Given that those remarks have since been removed from her video, it doesn’t sound like they’re as cool with it as you think.
Comment by Ms. Jack — August 16, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
Wow, I was away from this thread for a couple hours and it actually got worse. You know, there’s really no such thing as “rock bottom” on the Internet.
Comment by Syphax — August 16, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
I’ll admit up front that I haven’t read all these comments, but I know John personally (and knew him before the internet even existed!) and am sure that the video clip did not accurately represent the primary messages of the interview. Anyone who’s seen John’s FB page knows that he’s been posting positive stuff about this campaign for a couple weeks now.
GJ–this post is pretty mean-spirited.
Comment by hkobeal — August 16, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
#134. For the record, if I were any other person, I would probably be in the same boat as Geoff, suspicious of John’s true intentions and a little disappointed in both his choice of wording and the slightly deceptive editing. I do think his comments come across as unfairly critical of the Church, and the whole Mitt Romney thing seems over-the-top. It would be easy to look at John’s comments and think he only stays in the Church because he hopes it will one day ascend to his enlightened level, without appreciating that it’s a complicated structure and culture that isn’t very big on changing and definitely doesn’t like outside pressure.
But John is my Uncle. I looked up to him in a major way as a child and always relished every minute of Uncle John time I had. The one thing I’ve noticed about my Uncle John is that he will always listen first before talking, because he sincerely cares about how other people think and feel. If anyone else said those same things I would suspect worse, but I know John, and I know that above all else he wants to do what’s right. I don’t agree with his approach at times, but I never question his motives. For what that’s worth.
Comment by Syphax — August 16, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
Kristine: Do you really want us to start trotting out General Conference quotations from the last 5 years that say exactly the same thing? Really?
Yes. Specifically please show me the quotes that discourage husbands from cooking.
Look we all know what the Proclamation says. I just object to some of the additions people want to add to it like this cooking nonsense.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
re 135,
I don’t know how I’ve gone this entire time without knowing that family tree tidbit, but what a great comment.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 16, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
sigh, again, some more.
Comment by John C. — August 16, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
#137. Andrew: Shhhh… only Wikipedia is aware of that fact.
May I also remark that your voice is always welcome, patient, fair, and fun in any conversation.
Comment by Syphax — August 16, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
Geoff,
It is hard to argue that the church is enlightened regarding women’s roles when we had the cow analogy in the last conference. That said, I think that the church is trending toward more enlightenment on that front and I think that the ads reflect that.
Or, of course, maybe it is all cynical media manipulation. If you all want to believe that, it is your right, but I don’t think I can have a conversation with you. Which may not be your goal, I realize.
Comment by John C. — August 16, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Ms. Jack,
You are right that the “ideal” model promoted in the church even today has only the father working and the mother able to be a mother full time while the young children are home. But while that model is held up as ideal I wouldn’t say it rises to the level of “doctrine” as you say.
I haven’t seen all of the videos. As far as I know some videos are showing parents dropping the kids off at day care. Heaven knows there are many, many faithful LDS families that do that. If the videos do show that I would be just as happy with them as I am with the few I’ve seen. It would show that nobody on the ground level in the church really cares much if the ideal model is not being matched.
As I said in #124 — these videos are showing real people in the church so it is silly to call that misleading in my opinion.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
John C (#140),
I agree.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Well, as an ex-mormon, I will say that John Dehlin makes me feel better towards the mormon church than any of those you would consider “true” mormons or whatever you are implying. He gives me hope that all the hatefulness I’ve endured from my family since leaving might not be truly how the entire mormon church feels about me, but maybe my family is just misguided, because here we have a very public figure, a mormon, who is reaching out to exmormons, trying to understand us, and viewing us as people rather than devils to be feared and shunned and hated. John Dehlin’s views are progressive, and certainly not shared by all mormons (and I don’t think he expects all mormons to agree with him either, he’s just presenting one viewpoint), but if the Mormon church could cultivate and foster more mormons like him, there may just be hope for the mormon church’s future.
Comment by Janelle — August 16, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
Mormons are weird.
Comment by Susan M — August 16, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
Hehe. True Susan. But who isn’t?
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Me.
Comment by Syphax — August 16, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
John is honest and says things like it is- I wish most people would be more like him.John did a great job and gave a balanced interview….he made positive comments and some that admitted things need to head in a better direction. Unfortunately when they edited his comments they did not leave in the positive ones….that was not his fault, he tried to be balanced.
Anyone that calls John anti-Mormon could not be so wrong. I would have left the church if it were not for John. How many anti-Mormons attend church each week, hold callings and also encourage people to stay in the church even if they fall away or disbelieve? For someone who is trying to ‘throw the church under the bus’ this makes no sense? John has helped thousands of people find a reason to stay when they really no longer feel they can.
Most people are in denial….they think the church is completely positive and there is no way they could be wrong about anything! This is unrealistic. John is realistic and can praise the good and also have the courage to try to make a change. He should be admired for what he has done and he is helping to make the church a better place for everyone.
Comment by Josephine — August 16, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
*Sigh*
No one is calling John an anti-Mormon.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
Almost half way to 300…
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Kaboom. Half way. Alright debaters, we are half way there. We have more than 24 hours to hit 300 and make my prediction come true.
Blog firestorms rule.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Oh wait, that’s right, you didn’t call John an anti-Mormon, did you? Instead, you said that he adequately fit the role of a “Mormon-bashing troll” and that “He’ll obviously be happy to do what he can to throw the Church under the proverbial bus.” Certainly no reasonable could confuse that with the anti-Mormon label.
Comment by Carson N — August 16, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Being part of the Fluffy Bunny Nice-Nice Club or some variation of it is few notches above being willing to throw the church under the bus to make ABC happy.
Comment by Geoff J — August 16, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
Yes, John D. has taken flak from both right and left.
No, John D. is not a Mormon-bashing troll. It’s possible that the reporters or editors want him to sound that way. Anyone who has ever spoken with reporters, then been quoted in a story, knows the problem.
John gives candid remarks about the ad campaign. Geoff posts candid remarks about John’s candid comments. It’s a free country.
I share John’s hope that there’s an aspirational goal in mind. Maybe the ads are an attempt by senior leadership to get around Correlation and get around the so-out-of-date-they-are-no-longer-reliable manuals and drag the membership of the Church out of 1950ish middle America stereotypes into the 21st century.
Comment by Dave — August 17, 2010 @ 1:05 am
Andrew (#111),
then I don’t know what else we are supposed to doubt than his Mormonism.
How about just his fitness as a spokesperson for the church? Look, I don’t have any beef whatsoever with John calling himself Mormon. There is no sense in which I am saying he is not a “real” Mormon. He is not “less Mormon” than me. If you can’t think of anything my comment can mean other than that we should doubt his Mormonism then I would humbly suggest you are not making much of an effort.
Comment by Jacob J — August 17, 2010 @ 1:18 am
Jacob (re 154)
But aren’t members supposed to be spokespeople for the church every day? Every member’s a missionary, at the very least. But notwithstanding that, we have this ad campaign which is taking more members and making them spokespeople.
If a member of the church is unfit to be a spokesperson for the church when members are supposed to be spokespeople and the church wants to showcase more members as spokespeople in their efforts, then this implies unfitness elsewhere.
Whether that is “loyalty to the church” or one’s Mormonism itself, I humbly counter that “not making much of an effort” would be more easily found from drawing no conclusions from saying someone is a poor spokesperson for the church other than the one that they are unfit as spokesperson for the church.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 17, 2010 @ 1:45 am
Wow, that was amazing how you turned it around on me like that. Clearly, I’ve been served.
Comment by Jacob J — August 17, 2010 @ 2:02 am
hearing that makes this is the happiest day of my life. I’m going to print this page out, black out the counters in all the 0s, 8s, 6s, etc., and then try to get over the trauma of comment 85.
Comment by Andrew S. — August 17, 2010 @ 2:08 am
I have no doubt that this explanation of your decision to delete my comment is accurate.
Anyway, you act like John Dehlin murdered somebody or something. All he has done is criticize church commercials. Big deal. If that is all it takes to drive some random viewers on ABC away from Mormonism then they were out the door already. Seriously, get a grip man.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 17, 2010 @ 2:32 am
Re: #158
Oh snap!
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 2:37 am
#141: “… I would be just as happy with them as I am with the few I’ve seen. It would show that nobody on the ground level in the church really cares much if the ideal model is not being matched.”
1. Is the ideal model of a member not criticizing the church more important than the ideal model related to families and raising children at home? Cause if it’s quite ok to not match the latter and even showcase that, why so much ado about the former?
2. I was also thinking that the word “loyalty” needs to be better defined in this discussion. Does being “loyal” to the church simply mean not criticizing the church’s actions, or can it mean something more fundamental in one’s attitude towards the church that simultaneously makes one free to present even critical views freely? I guess Quinn used the phrase “loyal opposition” in some of his writing.
Comment by Northerner — August 17, 2010 @ 6:07 am
Hmm, that must have been what happened to my post!
Wait, I hadn’t gotten around to making a post!?
I think this ended up with a worthwhile discussion, all in all, and a funny line or too as well.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — August 17, 2010 @ 7:39 am
I suppose it was hopelessly naive of me to expect my original comment to last long without being vandalized.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 17, 2010 @ 7:56 am
Did Mitt get the same treatment in these parts when he went on ABC in 2007 and had this exchange with George Stephanopoulos?
Stephanopoulos: “In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years.”
Romney: “That doesn’t happen to be a doctrine of my church.”
Or when Mitt went on CBS and announced that he couldn’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy?
Given the choice between defending John Dehlin’s right to his own opinion or explaining away Romney’s double speak, I know which I would prefer if my objective happened to be casting the LDS religion in the most favorable light.
The former. Duh.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 8:15 am
#141 Geoff J ~ When I say “doctrine” I mean it in the sense of “what the church currently teaches.” I’m with your buddy Blake on the non-existence of “Mormon doctrine” in the sense that Latter-day Saints usually mean it.
these videos are showing real people in the church so it is silly to call that misleading in my opinion.
Right, but this goes back to what I initially said in #128. We can also find real people in the church who have tattoos, extra piercings, drink coffee, etc. It’s one thing to showcase the diversity of current church members in the sense of, “Look at what a big tent we have! We encourage and endorse all of these things within our movement.” It’s quite another to showcase diversity that the church openly discourages. That is why Dehlin called the ads “misleading.”
This ad campaign reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons that involves a commercial for the Roman Catholic Church wherein “a driver pulls into a gas station and beeps for service. Three attractive women begin pumping gas and wiping windows. Then he notices the crucifix one woman is wearing, and the voiceover says, ‘The Catholic Church — we’ve made a few … changes.’” (This joke was so controversial that the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights threatened a lawsuit and successfully got the episode edited in re-runs.)
I see this ad campaign and all I can think is, “The Mormon Church — we’ve made a few … changes.”
Comment by Ms. Jack — August 17, 2010 @ 8:51 am
These things get so funny, I almost fell off my chair. The ones that are objecting to the ads are actually the ONES who are trying to perpetuate the stereotypes rather than recognizing that these are only member-perceived stereotypes.
so, if the white-shirted, horned-rimed glasses types want to huddle in the bishop’s office and read the GHI, the rest of us will be in the parking lot between Sacrament and Sunday School doing ollies off the curb and rolling up our sleeves to show off our tattoos of the Salt Lake Temple while waving goodbye to Mom as she heads off to the fire station for her next 36 hour shift. And, hurrying home to get dinner ready.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 9:19 am
My biggest issue with all this has to do with when I think back to the time of Christ and what He did. He didn’t build temples with tens of millions of dollars of imported materials. He didn’t build multi-billion dollar shopping malls and million dollar condos. He didn’t spend millions and millions on slick ad campaigns for His message. He didn’t seem to care if He was seen cavorting with the “worst of the worst” sinners. At the end of the day, His message was so powerful and simple and focused on the inner person that that, in and of itself, was enough.
I contrast that with our Church today. According to the Church’s own website, for the past 25+ years, we have averaged around $15 million annually in actual cash spent on humanitarian aid, yet we spend tens of millions on things that, in the eyes of the world, are more representative of a corporation than Christ’s church. We have an image problem. So we are running these ads.
My best explanation for John’s comments actually comes from Buddhism. When someone points at the moon, the goal is to get someone to look at the moon, not your finger. The finger is irrelevant in the long run. The goal of the Church is to point people to God. Yet the vast majority of things the Church is known for are peculiarities that have nothing to do with God (ie. white shirted missionaries, no bare shoulders, not drinking wine although Christ did, etc.) Much of it is cultural baggage that has encrusted our basic message. It’s like using a gnarled and arthritic finger to point at the moon. In that case, because it’s so different, people end up looking at the finger rather than the moon.
John’s hopes, and mine, when he “hopes that these claims are aspirational” are that the Church gets rid of the peculiarities that focus attention on the Church so that we can use the Church to focus people’s attention on God.
Comment by Mike S — August 17, 2010 @ 9:34 am
Mike S.,
“My biggest issue with all this has to do with when I think back to the time of Christ and what He did.”
And 99.9% of the world never heard of him until the marketing campaign! or, was it Constantine forcing the Romans to embrace Christianity?
The point is we live in a different world. The Temples are for the use of the members and the members are the ones paying for it, not the “church.” The other businesses support other Church activities, not shareholders.
“we have averaged around $15 million annually in actual cash spent on humanitarian aid,”
Actually, the way I see it is the Church has donated 1.2B in cash and goods since 1985 which is $48.5M a year. Has another religious organization given more than that?
The church has been running ads for many, many years. This is the latest installment. I do not see the problem.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 9:48 am
Christ didn’t build expensive temples made from imported materials… but he seemed to enjoy the temple that was built that way.
Comment by Syphax — August 17, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Northerner (#160): why so much ado about the former?
What ado? All I see is one blog post by me. I just expressed my opinion that I think Dehlin should avoid such interviews because he has that whole perma-patsy problem.
Regarding loyalty, I suppose it is a bit hard to define specifically. But did you see the video? As I said, with friends like that who needs enemies?
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Chino Blanco (#163): Did Mitt get the same treatment in these parts when he went on ABC in 2007 and had this exchange with George Stephanopoulos?
Snort!
Well done Chino. Totally random and off topic comments like that help in the drive to hit 300 comments before the end of today.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Earlier today, I noticed a short post over at the More Good Foundation that included a similar claim: “This ad campaign has nothing to do with Mitt Romney, as the Church has run these types of campaigns at intervals throughout the past few decades.”
Which is why I guess that MGF blogger decided to run with that particular file photo. /snark
C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute.
Translation: Nice try, but you’re doing it wrong.
I.e., when the More Good Foundation includes a big photo of Romney in a short article asserting that the LDS church’s latest PR campaign has nothing to do with Mitt’s presidential prospects, that editorial choice winds up making about as much sense as what’s happening here.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 10:33 am
Ms. Jack (#164): It’s quite another to showcase diversity that the church openly discourages.
I hear you. I am still wondering which videos do this though. Are you resting your entire case on something about Cassandra not doing all the cooking? Which specific commercials are you talking about with this argument? I still haven’t seen any of the commercials that support your claims here.
Feel free to include links.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Jeff Spector (#165): The ones that are objecting to the ads are actually the ONES who are trying to perpetuate the stereotypes rather than recognizing that these are only member-perceived stereotypes.
Word. Critics of the Church seem to object to the idea that there are actually cool and happy Mormons in the world. I suppose Dehlin is among the people who feel this resentment.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Chino Blanco (#171),
Awesome. I love the whole paranoid conspiracy theory schtick you are busting out — seeing Mitt Romney around every corner. It’s really funny.
But more seriously — I suspect that the Romney campaign in ’08 helped reveal how ignorant most Americans are about Mormons though. That new data may indeed have helped inspire these ads. But of course that would have happened whether Mitt was considering a 2012 run or not.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Geoff J. (#174),
And I love how you and Jeff seem incapable of setting aside your obsession with ID’ing Critics of the Church and making time to seriously consider whether what you’re doing here promotes or hinders the aims of your own church’s most recent PR efforts.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 11:00 am
As long as you’re appreciating the help:
When does that profile go live at mormon.org?
But whether it does or not, when/if Jon ever throws his hat into the ring, I look forward to volunteering for his campaign.
But, hey, let’s keep this all about John Dehlin, who’s obviously off the reservation.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 11:11 am
Chino: making time to seriously consider whether what you’re doing here promotes or hinders the aims of your own church’s most recent PR efforts
Har! You are on a roll today Chino. I’m pretty sure the discussions at this obscure blog do neither.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Chino,
“And I love how you and Jeff seem incapable of setting aside your obsession with ID’ing Critics of the Church”
We have the same name, so we must be the same person……
So, Chino, just what is your obsession? Being one, I guess…
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
Geoff,
“I suppose Dehlin is among the people who feel this resentment.’
i don’t really share that opinion of John. He is just trying to be fair to all sides and sometimes might bend over a bit backwards to do that….
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
You are probably right Jeff. But man this interview was a fiasco.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
#172 Geoff J ~ The ABC video segment contains a clip from Cassandra Barney saying, “I believe that a woman’s place is actually not in the kitchen” (at 0:55); John Dehlin objected to this specifically. This clip has apparently been edited and does not appear in Cassandra Barney’s video at Mormon.org.
Women featured in careers:
Mia Love ~ The mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah. African American, in an interracial marriage, three young children at home.
Helen Newton ~ Ophthalmologist, African American, mother of two, her younger son is 14. (I’ve just noticed that it appears from her bio at Mormon.org that she may be divorced / not married now.)
Kelly Lineback ~ Dentist, runs her own practice, mother of three.
Emily Sherinian ~ Describes herself as a “full-time health professional.” Mother of three.
I am 100% in favor of a Mormonism that embraces and encourages working women and discourages traditional gender roles, so I agree with John Dehlin when he says that if these videos are aspirational, then it’s a good thing. If this is a signal that we’re about to see a revision in the Family Proclamation and changes in what the current church manuals teach concerning gender, then it is indeed exciting.
What I don’t want to see is the church pretending that it embraces these things when all we’re really seeing are members who have embraced these ideals in spite of the church’s teachings, not because of them. That would indeed be misleading. Kim Farah said that the ad campaign was about breaking stereotypes; well, sometimes stereotypes are well-deserved.
Comment by Ms. Jack — August 17, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
Of course, the same characterization could never be employed here in defense of either a Romney or a Huntsman because, as Geoff points out, such an effort would involve ignoring the pay grade of this obscure blog.
Better to limit Bloggernacle Times discussions to local issues, like tearing down any fellow Mormon bloggers who happen to get too big for their britches.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Chino you are so cute when you get huffy.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
And you’re so typical when you’re non-responsive, Geoff J.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
I wish to make a contribution toward reaching 300 comments. Is my contribution tax deductible?
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — August 17, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
Ms. Jack,
Thanks for the links. That helps me understand your point better.
Yep, it seems pretty clear to me that the shift in the culture is well under way when it comes to working women in Mormonism. I doubt that dropping kids off at daycare will be extolled as the optimal situation but I also think messaging like this indicates how the culture has shifted to become comfortable with working women even in the Church HQ.
So I continue to agree with Dehlin’s optimism about it all. That was never the problem with the interview. The problem was his insinuating that this is potentially all a ruse and a lie by the Church rather than an indication of a legitimate cultural shift.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Ms. Jack,
“What I don’t want to see is the church pretending that it embraces these things when all we’re really seeing are members who have embraced these ideals in spite of the church’s teachings, not because of them. That would indeed be misleading.”
I guess my first question might be, “Why do you care what the Church and its members do?”
As was stated earlier, the Church teaches a position considered ideal by its theology (not doctrine). But reality is king, so folks have lifestyles they are comfortable with or forced to have based on circumstances. No one gets excommunicated or refused a temple recommend because she works outside the home or has kids in daycare. And no husband is denied the priesthood because he cooks dinner or babysits his own children.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
For the record, since Geoff J. apparently enjoys my participation (even if for reasons that I’m not at all keen to explore):
I’m personally skeptical of any religious appeal that appears to be all about minimizing the impression that religious commitment necessarily interferes with carefree consumerism.
Such commitments should interfere with that awful modern tendency, dammit. But these latest LDS appeals, like so many other religious appeals lately, seem directed at the lowest of low-hanging fruit, to those in-between souls who’ve found a modicum of happiness in a thought-free consumer existence, but who somehow wish/hope for something more.
So, anyways, I happen to personally favor religious appeals that make no apologies for actively rejecting the trivial. And if what I personally hope for is a rejection of skateboards and motorcycles in favor of pondering the kind of heavy topics that should be on offer at obscure blogs like this one, I guess that makes me a weirdo. Or maybe it explains why I even bother.
But to each his own. John Dehlin apparently believes there’s value in what’s on offer in the current Mormon PR campaign. I don’t necessarily agree, but I’m mystified at how shallow the objections have been from his own LDS peers. If this is the best response to John’s stance that you can muster, I’m thinking that maybe it’s better to ignore my own misapprehensions and allow the LDS community its own modicum of mainstream American consumerist bliss.
At this point, judging by the conversation here, for Mormons to finally join the ranks of a light-minded but otherwise egalitarian American mainstream might do y’all some good.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Your unquenchable angst/misery is sorta endearing Chino.
It is is pretty funny how you are baffled that someone could find real joy in skateboarding and motorcycles. But people do find real joy in those kinds of hobbies and activities. And I remind you that Mormonism is all about finding and experiencing joy:
I hope you won’t begrudge us being happy.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
And no husband is denied the priesthood because he cooks dinner or babysits his own children.
To contribute to reaching 300, can I just state for the record that one does not babysit one’s own children? But the fact that there are still folks who think of it that way tells me the church needs more than a schmick PR campaign to pull a paradigm shift like this off.
Having said that, I like the PR campaign and share the hope that it is indeed aspirational in nature.
Comment by Katie L. — August 17, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Katie L.: one does not babysit one’s own children
Hehe. I saw that one coming a mile away. Jeff stepped in it be using the “b” word like that.
But the fact that there are still folks who think of it that way tells me the church needs more than a schmick PR campaign to pull a paradigm shift like this off.
I think you have it backwards. The people of the church have already made the paradigm shift. The messaging approved by Church HQ is a trailing indicator. That is one of the things we get by having a church run by old people. Of course having old folks run the organization has some real strengths too.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
#185—Yes, Ardis, but it’s only worth $.02.
Comment by SilverRain — August 17, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Geoff, I appreciate that you can see a real cultural shift, but hopefully you can understand the annoyance of some of us who were mercilessly guilt-tripped for being just a little more progressive than the church.
Comment by Pheo — August 17, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
And here is my contribution toward 300 comments. If Ardis gets a tax write-off for her comments, I would appreciate one for mine, too.
Comment by Brian Duffin — August 17, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
You’re kidding, right ,Jeff? Most religious organizations donate more than this annually, and certainly more of their gross receipts, to humanitarian causes than does the LDS Church.
Comment by ECS — August 17, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
ECS,
I agree that number Jeff quoted seems a bit low. Do you know of any articles or studies or posts that lay out the actual numbers? These sorts of disagreements don’t get very far when when we can’t make fair comparisons with reliable numbers.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
#187 Jeff Spector ~ Why do you care what the Church and its members do?
Why wouldn’t I care?
As was stated earlier, the Church teaches a position considered ideal by its theology (not doctrine). But reality is king, so folks have lifestyles they are comfortable with or forced to have based on circumstances. No one gets excommunicated or refused a temple recommend because she works outside the home or has kids in daycare.
True. They also don’t get excommunicated for swearing like a sailor, having tattoos, getting their noses pierced, wearing tank tops, or dying their hair pink—and they won’t have their temple recommends refused for most of those things, either. Why not feature some Mormons like that in advertisements? That would certainly break up the stereotypes.
Comment by Ms. Jack — August 17, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
and they won’t have their temple recommends refused for most of those things, either
Actually… you never know. The tattooer/piercer would still have to interveiw with a bishop and a stake presidency member to get the recommend and those judges could possibly invoke the “sustain the leaders” clause on egregious new looks.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Why not feature some Mormons like that in advertisements?
I don’t think the church is aiming for that crowd.
Comment by Eric Russell — August 17, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
ECS,
“You’re kidding, right ,Jeff? Most religious organizations donate more than this annually, and certainly more of their gross receipts, to humanitarian causes than does the LDS Church.’
Like who? How do you donate more than your gross receipts? Other thank the biggest charity of all, the US government, who gives more?
Sources, please.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
“babysits his own children.”
Because it gets people riled up
This is fun, right?
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Geoff,
“I agree that number Jeff quoted seems a bit low. Do you know of any articles or studies or posts that lay out the actual numbers?’
See this, http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/statistical-information for the numbers I used.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Oh, no worries on that front, Geoff J. I hope you some day recognize that leading indicators deserve their bit of happiness, too.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
Heh. I pity the fool who has the rely on the USG for handouts.
Comment by Peter LLC — August 17, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
I can’t find the exact numbers, but I’m pretty sure the Catholic chuch is the largest religious charity bringing humanitarian aid to the world. On the corporate side, though, big business is way more charitable than the LDS church. Just look up the 2009 cash donations to charity from Walmart ($288 million), AT&T ($240 million), and Target, who gives about $3 million every WEEK to charity. They put Jesus’ One True Church to shame.
Comment by Kristen — August 17, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Kristen,
There are a lot more factors at play than just gross donation numbers (which are used largely as tax write-offs in most cases). What about man hours donated for instance? If there are some actual reports that responsibly and fairly look at these numbers I am interested. But these half-baked figures we like to lob at each other like grenades don’t help if we are seeking an accurate picture on this subject.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
“On the corporate side, though, big business is way more charitable than the LDS church. Just look up the 2009 cash donations to charity from Walmart ($288 million), AT&T ($240 million), and Target, who gives about $3 million every WEEK to charity. ”
You’re right, and they do it for purely charitable reasons? Not tax breaks? And how much of that money is actually donations made by employees that are taken out of their checks each week?
BTW, Walmart has revenues of about $290 BILLION, so its not much as a percentage.
Comment by Jeff Spector — August 17, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Who isn’t?
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
Well, we seem to be winding down well before 300, Geoff J. Call it an intermission or a welcome diversion, whatever, the creators call it: “Hi, My name is Rock, and yep, I’m a Mormon”
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Or for those who aren’t parkour fanatics, there’s always: “Hi, I’m Sarah, and I’m a (pro-LGBT-rights) Mormon”
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
And for those who prefer straight-up earnestness, here’s Robert, who has nothing but good things to say about his mission to Japan.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Therein lies the rub. The mormon church doesn’t actually report complete numbers about finances(or much else really). You would have to be a senior apostle or senior accountant at the church to know this. So the accurate picture is certain to elude us.
Comment by no thanks — August 17, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Oh well. That’s sorta how private companies and organizations work. So since we don’t have the data needed for that discussion let’s move on to an interesting subject. Or we can just let this mess of a thread die. I vote for that last one.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
So what is the more interesting subject? Why your knee jerks when John Dehlin talks?
Comment by no thanks — August 17, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
I’m just bored of this thread. It was fun while it lasted though.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
Geoff, the Mormon Church donates none of its tithing money to humanitarian causes. I think it’s safe to say that the Catholic Church and many other churches have donated more than $1.2 billion over the past 22 years total.
It’s also safe to say that the money spent on this PR campaign could be better used in Haiti or any other third world country for basic needs such as food, shelter and medical care.
Comment by ECS — August 17, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
[Deleted.]
[Flat Lander, stinky little trolls like you aren't welcome here.]
Comment by Flat Lander — August 17, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
I’ve noticed a lot in the bloggernacle that people get “bored” with threads they’ve started. I could understand a feeling like being “tired” of a thread, but “bored” is different. ????…
Comment by Andrew S. — August 17, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
ECS: It’s also safe to say that the money spent on this PR campaign could be better used in Haiti or any other third world country for basic needs such as food, shelter and medical care.
Snort! No it is not safe to say that. Why on earth would you think it is safe to assume such a thing?
Of course you aren’t the first to mistakenly think it was obvious how Church assets should be used. See here.
But of course donations are optional so if you don’t trust the Church to use its funds prudently you don’t have to give.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
Well, before Geoff tires of his own thread …
If you still think that a single appearance on ABC News has the ability to make someone the new “go-to” critic of Mormonism, you’ve been wasting way too much time watching TV these past few years.
You should be grateful that ABC chose John Dehlin, but in the long run, it doesn’t matter who ABC picked. Not in the slightest. Because the guy you mockingly refer to as a “perma-patsy” brings a greater potential for shaping target opinion than all the remaining broadcast news networks combined.
But I don’t expect you to get that. Your appraisal of what’s going on here is so colored by your own sense of disempowerment that you can’t imagine a universe that operates under different rules … a world in which bloggers accept invitations to the White House because we’re suddenly the first string in a perception-shaping game whose outcome your hallowed ABC increasingly only pretends to influence.
If you understood the stakes, I expect you might try to make more of an effort to persuade folks like me to share John’s optimism about LDS PR efforts. As things stand, it looks like you’re still mostly interested in ID’ing insiders and outsiders and candidates for excommunication.
Good luck with that. And not that it hasn’t been an interesting couple of years following your efforts here, but by all indications, luck is something you’re gonna need, because you’re not winning any points on charm.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
Oh good. Huffy, indignant Chino is back.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
Well with me getting both tired and bored of this thread and with stinky little trolls starting to roll in (which makes management of the thread more time consuming) I guess I’ll shut down things now. Sorry to all of you who would like to yell at me or call me names or whatever but can’t now. Feel free to email me if you would like.
Comment by Geoff J — August 17, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
Do you want 300 or not?
Slacker.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 17, 2010 @ 6:22 pm