12 replies to this topic

[phaedrus ut]

Church leaders clearly found it important enough to intervene in the John Dehlin situation so they obviously follow the happenings at NAMIRS and are willing to step in and correct what they see as error.   Why didn't someone step in to save Daniel and the others at NAMIRS/FARMS?


Phaedrus

Edit: I just saw the typo on my subject line.  It should read "Why Didn't ... not Why Did"

Edited by phaedrus ut, 02 July 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[calmoriah]

I think this thread is premature.

It is not as if the situation took place a year ago and nothing was done since then.  Dan is still out of the country, it happened two weeks ago and it is quite possible that something else is happening or will happen so the end is not yet in sight.

[phaedrus ut]

calmoriah, on 02 July 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

I think this thread is premature.

Yes it could be. It has received plenty of press coverage and the Maxwell Institute did respond with their own announcement on the subject.  I suspect that if something to the contrary was going to happen it would have happened by now.


Phaedrus

[calmoriah]

phaedrus ut, on 02 July 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yes it could be. It has received plenty of press coverage and the Maxwell Institute did respond with their own announcement on the subject.  I suspect that if something to the contrary was going to happen it would have happened by now.


Phaedrus

Even though Dan and others involved are still out of town and someone intelligent might think that if there was confusion about what was going on it might be easier to resolve in a face to face?

[wenglund]

phaedrus ut, on 02 July 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Church leaders clearly found it important enough to intervene in the John Dehlin situation so they obviously follow the happenings at NAMIRS and are willing to step in and correct what they see as error.

If a church leader or church leaders supposedly intervened in the "John Dehlin situation," then why wasn't one of the key parties to the alleged intervention (i.e. Dr. Peterson) not be aware of the intervention?

It is anything but clear, which means that the question of the OP is based on a dubious presupposition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 02 July 2012 - 03:35 PM.

[phaedrus ut]

calmoriah, on 02 July 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Even though Dan and others involved are still out of town and someone intelligent might think that if there was confusion about what was going on it might be easier to resolve in a face to face?

I don't think this has anything to do with Dan specifically so I don't think there is a face to face resolution to be had.  I see it more like the decision to sell all of the ZCMI's the church owned and years later build a new modern general purpose mall with many luxury stores and a retractable roof.


Phaedrus

[calmoriah]

I see it more as an internal issue that needs to be mediated...and mediation is usually best when the people involved are there in the room.

[treehugger]

wenglund, on 02 July 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

If a church leader or church leaders supposedly intervened in the "John Dehlin situation," then why wasn't one of the key parties to the alleged intervention (i.e. Dr. Peterson) not be aware of the intervention?

It is anything but clear, which means that the question of the OP is based on a dubious presupposition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Isn't it just as dubious and presumptuous to suggest that Dan not being aware means it did not happen? What you suggest goes against delegation and assignment of instructions.

[Pahoran]

phaedrus ut, on 02 July 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Church leaders clearly found it important enough to intervene in the John Dehlin situation so they obviously follow the happenings at NAMIRS and are willing to step in and correct what they see as error.

Even if you are naive enough to uncritically accept Mister Dehlin's self-aggrandizing version of events -- as indeed you seem to be -- what you "clearly" see does not follow.  Mister Dehlin personally emailed a Seventy, so they didn't have to "follow" any "happenings" -- whoever it was responded, if he responded at all, to a personal approach.

I say "if," because I'm still not clear whether any GA actually had to say anything at all, or whether Bradford found the email all the excuse he needed to pre-emptively put the kibosh on another article.

Regards,
Pahoran

[blackstrap]

phaedrus ut, on 02 July 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Edit: I just saw the typo on my subject line.  It should read "Why Didn't ... not Why Did"

Perhaps the typo was prophetic.

[nealr]

Pahoran, on 02 July 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Even if you are naive enough to uncritically accept Mister Dehlin's self-aggrandizing version of events -- as indeed you seem to be -- what you "clearly" see does not follow.  Mister Dehlin personally emailed a Seventy, so they didn't have to "follow" any "happenings" -- whoever it was responded, if he responded at all, to a personal approach.

I second this. The GA reportedly involved was dragged in by Dehlin himself, and if he did anything, he was doing a personal favor for a friend, not because the Church itself necessarily saw fit to take action (these sorts of things - GAs meddling in the various affairs - have happened at BYU before). Nothing said to be "clear" or "obvious" in OP is a given at all.

[ERayR]

treehugger, on 02 July 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Isn't it just as dubious and presumptuous to suggest that Dan not being aware means it did not happen? What you suggest goes against delegation and assignment of instructions.

I just find it hard to believe that Dehlin has that much influence with a GA.

[wenglund]

treehugger, on 02 July 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Isn't it just as dubious and presumptuous to suggest that Dan not being aware means it did not happen? What you suggest goes against delegation and assignment of instructions.

My suggestion would only be dubious and presumptuous if one turns probability on its head and favors the counter-intuitive. In most any chain of command, when a superior issues an order, even if it is carried out by way of delegation, it is typically executed under the authority of the person doing the delegating, otherwise it would be as if the subordinate had issued the order and the superior had no say at all. Sorry, you aren't making sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-