Some in the LDS community rise to stardom with callings or books they've authored. But John Dehlin, the brains behind the OpenStoriesFoundation and Mormon Stories podcasts (you can find on iTunes), has come about it in a different way. Dehlin is an active Mormon that wears a unique set of lenses from his experiences. His experiences include trouble on his mission, disaffection (short-lived, and mild) with the Church, some dissent regarding standard teachings, and questions regarding past practices. He is active and remains such because during those times of disinterest and dissent, he could "feel something leave".
Dehlin poses a really unique and important role in modern Mormonism because he is frank, honest, and I think he is a superb interviewer. He asks the right questions on both sides.
Recently, controversy erupted at the Maxwell Institute when an article accused Dehlin of subtly engaging in mere exit stories. It ended in a lot of hurt feelings and the termination of an individual I respect a lot: Dan Peterson. I don't assume to know the story, but from the bits I gather, there are some disappointing things one can easily infer.
First, the most important part of our theology is the Plan of Salvation
One thing I wish Dehlin would at least bring up a little more is the beauty behind the theology we teach as well as highlight the good as it relates to the bad. (The balance is overwhelmingly in favor of the good.) So here is my issue with everything involved: steel in the Book of Mormon, the LGBT controversies, etc... are secondary to our doctrine. They are things that are important to potentially discuss, but it should be done with the fact that we have much more in common than not! We believe in a God who is a literal Father, Who is attempting to do everything He can to ensure our safe return home. That is the fundamental piece! So where to LGBT members fit in, for example? We want them to return too! Dehlin, Peterson, President Monson, and even Brigham Young could all agree on that. So why not make that the starting point of discussion if that is the controversy that is going to be discussed?
Trivial matters become so central when we let them become such, but our weekly cleansing covenant does not mention anything about how we think about blacks in the early Church, or LGBT fairness. It asks us to think of Christ and His Atonement: a sacrifice made for all people!
Second, think about your words
The other day I bought a cup of hot chocolate from the law school cafeteria where I attend school. When I was parting, the young man working said, "Have a good day." But did it in a commanding tone. I thought about it and realized he just gave me a commandment: have a good day. I thought about words and was encountered with another greeting just moments later: a classmate said, "Morning." That was it, and what was odd, I replied with the same exact word. But why? Why do we say "Morning." Is it because we fear the other person did not know the time of day? Or have just gotten lazy and wanted to drop the "Good" from the sentence to save a syllable? Maybe he was saying "Mourning" because he was mourning the loss of someone? To expound on the experience, someone said, "What's up?" for a greeting and I replied, "Good." I realized just seconds after that I predetermined the response.
I bring this up only because much of our language is the same: (1) we say things arbitrarily, and (2) we don't actually listen to what is said, just prepare our response for what we thing that person would say or is going to say.
Finally, we need all walks in the Church
When the Maxwell v. Dehlin scuttle came about, I was very much on the apologists side, and still probably tend to side with Peterson when it comes to what happened. I feel he has contributed a lot to the community of LDS scholarship and his dismissal was a showing of under appreciation, particularly with how some blogs covered it.
I even made some very strong remarks about the faithlessness of individuals on the internet and how we need fierce defenders in the Church. I thought this was a wheat harvest for sure! But, I had a change of heart. I listened to Dehlin's podcast and found some wonderfully insightful and comforting things. One, Dehlin has become, over the years, and excellent interviewer. He has also showcased strong LDS members whom I love and look up to in a very positive, but real light. Philip Barlow, for example, spoke candidly of his divorce. My in-laws have made me feel awful about being from a home where my folks divorced. I thought for sure the decision of my parents tainted me for life, but to hear this interview where a faithful member talks about it was so comforting. And the empathy I felt for Bro. Barlow was overwhelming. I had a true spiritual experience listening to his discussion.
I realized I needed to hear that.
To go a long with this point, there are too many members finding things on Google and not knowing where to turn. Sometimes the apologist approach is not satisfactory, and what they need to hear are people who (a) know more about the subject, (b) remain active despite the controversy, and (c) validate their confusion without making them feel bad about it. I think Dehlin's podcast does that.
On the flip-side, there are apologetic articles that really clear the air and help us dismiss some of the bogus claims out there. I think Peterson and others have done a great job of this. I think Nibley was a great example of an objective apologist and I have read a lot of his work and felt my testimony strengthened as result.
I, and I think others, have benefited from both approached. Both are important and both serve to help those struggling.
The bottom line is that people struggle for whatever reason in the Church, and we should be working together to help them, not point out the flaws in each other.
If you read and have insight, please comment, but in the spirit of the article, at the very least be kind.
