Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction


Recommended Posts

Lou, I appreciate your input. I'm reading...listening...watching, both sides. It is really kind of difficult (as an onlooker) to know exactly what happened. It sounds like there were some very profound misunderstandings.

I looked up your article, "Defending the King and His Kingdom"....I do understand what you're saying.

Link to comment

Lou, I appreciate your input. I'm reading...listening...watching, both sides. It is really kind of difficult (as an onlooker) to know exactly what happened. It sounds like there were some very profound misunderstandings.

I looked up your article, "Defending the King and His Kingdom"....I do understand what you're saying.

Glad you're back on MDDB Libs, and helping with the investigation! Kind of kidding on the last part; but only kind of. Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

Whomever told John about the, supposed, "hit piece" allegedly told him that the missionary death was included in the piece. I don't know if John assumed it was going to be connected to him, or if the informant told him that, as a fact.

If he told him that, then it was because he hadn't actually read the essay.

The very first version of Greg's essay, the one that existed before anything had been revised in it for the Mormon Studies Review, says nothing at all about Dehlin's mission in Guatemala. The only mention of the word Guatemala is in a quote from Dehlin that is taken from his interview with Michael Coe, and it has to do with the identification of Guatemalans as Lamanites by Spencer Kimball.

It does have one footnote to Missionary Guide: Training for Missionaries (Salt Lake City, Utah: Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988), to support a reference which talks about Jesus Christ being the Son of God. That's all there is.

The business about the paper talking about a missionary death is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the entire Dehlin podcast. It unfortunately leads him to believe this:

Then I go to the UVU conference, where I present the findings of the survey that I developed for the Church, that the Church was using and presenting to its own officials, right? And, Lou Midgley comes up after the presentation and he just starts yelling at me, wagging his finger in my face, and he started….he started talking about a missionary who died on my mission while I was….on my mission. So there was Elder….Elder Bartholomew. We had been companions, Zone leaders together. Later he transferred to a different zone, and while he was in another zone, he died in a boating accident, and they never found his body. And he started….the way I ….the way I understood Lou Midgley’s line of questioning was that in this article that they were preparing for me….he was gonna try and tie me to the death of a missionary….right?

And, Lou has already clarified this earlier in this thread.

This is utterly, completely false. Greg’s essay never once even mentioned Dehlin’s mission. Every draft of his essay, and I have read them all, examines what Dehlin has posted recently on Facebook and his various web ventures, including some of his podcasts or interviews. It does not even go back to the beginnings of his Mormon Stories venture.

Lou is correct - the essay never mentioned a missionary death, nor does it even talk about anything related to Dehlin's mission. I know this for a fact, because I'm looking at it right now.

WW

Link to comment

He asked him if his faith issues began with that tragic event (the 'involvement' does not have to imply 'caused' but can be simply one who participates...and those who are involved in tragedies often have emotional and mental responses to them...such as PSTD...asking if a vet who suffers from PSTD was involved in the war in Iraq is not asking them if they were the ones who started the war in most cases, but an effort to understand the causes of their current experience). I know of others who wonder how God can allow those who are supposedly doing his work to suffer and die, they see it as highly problematic and in some cases it leads them to doubt so trying to clarify if that event contributed to Dehlin's doubt is hardly remarkable in any way.

It was not homicide, why would you think it was? It was an accidental death, missionaries on a boat in a lake where they shouldn't have been, one (two?) who were drowned when a storm came up (apparently sudden storms were not unusual for the area IIRC). It was reported in the newspaper at the time (including Church News IIRC). That is where I read about it after Dehlin expressed displeasure on (allegedly) trying to connect it with him.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. When I read Midgeley's words, his comment on vengeance followed by this statement " Was he, I asked, involved in that death on that lake in Guatemala?" It struck me as if he was asking about John's involvement in some type of foul play. That's how my mind interpreted it having not known anything about this whole Dehlin/Peterson/Smith paper issue. I'm really in the dark on all this and piecing it together from all that's been written here.

But again, I apologize for my misinterpretation and fully accept the correction and Lou's clarification.

Link to comment

My apologies for the misunderstanding. When I read Midgeley's words, his comment on vengeance followed by this statement " Was he, I asked, involved in that death on that lake in Guatemala?" It struck me as if he was asking about John's involvement in some type of foul play. That's how my mind interpreted it having not known anything about this whole Dehlin/Peterson/Smith paper issue. I'm really in the dark on all this and piecing it together from all that's been written here.

But again, I apologize for my misinterpretation and fully accept the correction and Lou's clarification.

The problem I see here is that even giving Midgeley every benefit of the doubt and accepting his account of events as correct, the fact of even raising that issue could be very easily misinterpreted and I think understandably lead to mistrust. If indeed the question was whether he was involved and Mr. Midgeley meant something other than Dehlin having had some significant or direct part in it (as he claims) then he was using that word in an extremely unusual way. Had he asked him whether he had been affected by it, his explanation of what was meant by "involved" would make more sense. I think Mr. Midgeley chooses his words carefully and in fact meant involved in the ordinary sense of that word, but again, even if I am wrong it is very easy to see how this creates misunderstanding and mistrust. It is not every day one is asked whether they were involved in the death of another person. That would give me a jolt. Later assertions that the person asking me that question really meant affected would not be easy to swallow.

Link to comment

The problem I see here is that even giving Midgeley every benefit of the doubt and accepting his account of events as correct, the fact of even raising that issue could be very easily misinterpreted and I think understandably lead to mistrust. If indeed the question was whether he was involved and Mr. Midgeley meant something other than Dehlin having had some significant or direct part in it (as he claims) then he was using that word in an extremely unusual way. Had he asked him whether he had been affected by it, his explanation of what was meant by "involved" would make more sense. I think Mr. Midgeley chooses his words carefully and in fact meant involved in the ordinary sense of that word, but again, even if I am wrong it is very easy to see how this creates misunderstanding and mistrust. It is not every day one is asked whether they were involved in the death of another person. That would give me a jolt. Later assertions that the person asking me that question really meant affected would not be easy to swallow.

I should clarify that the explanation seems to be calmoriah's and not Midgeleys .

Link to comment

Indeed. Your spots are fairly predictably despicable as usual.

I pride myself on my predictability. Whether it is "despicable" or not is, I am certain, all in the eyes of the beholder. I see that "volgadon" and "Gohan" both agree with your judgment (having given you rep points for your comment). But given the fact that you are a long-established critic of the restored gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ, I will grant your comments (and the accord expressed by "volgadon" and "Gohan") the commendation they deserve.

.

.

.

Daniel C. Peterson:

Sigh. There is no "hit list," there is no "hit piece," there was never any allegation in The Infamous Unseen Essay that John Dehlin was involved in a "homicide," and nobody -- not I, not Greg Smith, not Lou Midgley -- has sought to blame Dehlin for anybody's death.

Having carefully read the article in question, I can confirm that it is most assuredly not a "hit piece." Unless, of course, one would characterize as a "hit piece" an article that consists almost exclusively of citations of John Dehlin's own words. This is no doubt why Dehlin was so worried about the article being published, conscious as he must be of those things he has said in the past.

Dehlin is a wolf in sheep's clothing who has mercilessly ravaged the faith of many. Greg Smith's article, even though it remains unpublished, raised Dehlin's profile such that his wolfish aspects became much more visible to many. Therefore Dehlin must now work to reclaim his "faithful Latter-day Saint bona fides" before he once again sets out to ravage the flock. However, in the future, I suspect he will do so within the confines of closed-door counseling sessions with struggling members, rather than via public "podcasts." Caveat emptor.

Link to comment

The problem I see here is that even giving Midgeley every benefit of the doubt and accepting his account of events as correct, the fact of even raising that issue could be very easily misinterpreted and I think understandably lead to mistrust. If indeed the question was whether he was involved and Mr. Midgeley meant something other than Dehlin having had some significant or direct part in it (as he claims) then he was using that word in an extremely unusual way. Had he asked him whether he had been affected by it, his explanation of what was meant by "involved" would make more sense. I think Mr. Midgeley chooses his words carefully and in fact meant involved in the ordinary sense of that word, but again, even if I am wrong it is very easy to see how this creates misunderstanding and mistrust. It is not every day one is asked whether they were involved in the death of another person. That would give me a jolt. Later assertions that the person asking me that question really meant affected would not be easy to swallow.

I think that's is a good point. This is how things get twisted and misunderstood. If John Dehlin had just learned about the paper (that same day?), it's easy to see why he mistakenly jumped to the conclusion this incident was part of the paper.

In hindsight, it seems that all of the questions Louis Midgley asked Dehlin in public that evening at UVU would have been better asked privately. Maybe things wouldn't have gotten so escalated?

Link to comment

This crazy notion that we were going to accuse John Dehlin of complicity in the death of a missionary in Guatemala -- based on absolutely nothing, and fostered by people who hadn't so much as seen the paper -- may well, I suppose, if it was passed on to a General Authority, quite understandably have prompted such a Church leader to have misgivings about our publishing it. Which were then mentioned to President Samuelson, who hadn't read the article but mentioned them to Gerald Bradford, who hadn't read the article but asked me not to publish it. Which I didn't.

Thereby proving that Dr. Gregory Smith, Dr. Louis Midgley, and I are bullies and thugs. QED.

Link to comment

ALarson:

Please read the two long items I have already posted. Greg Smith's essay had already been pulled from the issue of the Review.. And Dehlin had heard about Greg's essay, without knowing its content or who had written it because the fellow with whom Dan Peterson and I had been having a long conversation at the Maxwell Institute on 29 March 2013 had already, either acting on his own or from a request from someone else, had told a close associate of Dahlin's about the essay and this fellow had told Dehlin about it. This had already caused Dehlin in a panic to write email messages to six people, including Hans Mattson, an emeritus Area Seventy from Sweden, Elder Marlin Jensen, and Elder Holland, as well as Phil Barlow, Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens in an effort to prevent the publication of this essay. He clearly wanted censorship. Dan I had the morning of 29 March had that conversation with Morgan Davis because of his and Dehlin's effort to censor the Review.

My conversation with John Dehln in the afternoon of 29 March, which was long after he had made a stink about Greg Smith essay, was strictly private. The two people standing directly behind me hoping to hear what was being said told me they could not hear a word, and Scott Gordon, who was sitting next to Dehlin on the speakers stand could not hear a word of what was said either.

Link to comment

I've been trying to promise I wouldn't pay much attention to this stuff. Its like the manti teo stuff--why are we paying it any attention.

But...

So Louis MIdgely's words above are being taken elsewhere as saying Morgan Davis is the one who doesn't think the faith of the saints should be defended. I can't tell myself. Was it Morgan Davis and another person and this other person was the one who told another who told Dehlin? Or something. Or should we all get upset with the Morgan Davis guy for starting all this and thus, sending us all around these silly boards thinking this event all amounts to something?

Also, that lying scratch guy over there, somehow has quoted you, Louis, as saying you and DCP "interrogated" Davis for hours on the 29th. I don't see the that term so I thought I'd make others aware of it.

Man, those guys hate you and DCP over at that hate-filled joint.

Link to comment

My conversation with John Dehln in the afternoon of 29 March, which was long after he had made a stink about Greg Smith essay, was strictly private. The two people standing directly behind me hoping to hear what was being said told me they could not hear a word, and Scott Gordon, who was sitting next to Dehlin on the speakers stand could not hear a word of what was said either.

oh come on, but Kishkumen, who knows more about it than you apparently, said it was quite a scene and has been captured on peoples phones as recordings. Alright, I need to get out of this stuff. Them guys are a hoot, so much so, I guess I can't help it.

Link to comment

Just, FWIW, I know a few people who left the Church long before John Dehlin started his projects. Those people feel more positive and less antagonistic about the Church because of John's outreach. So far, I do not know any who have returned to the Church, but I know some who have restored their friendships and family members within the Church with understanding and kindness (i.e., they have switched from RFM mode to a more live and let live mode).

It is interesting to me that the harshest responses to John's work (and to his return to activity) are found here and on RFM.

I thought John's reaction to the potential critical piece about him was overdone. That is, to the extent that he holds the Church as an institution and its leaders up to cold hard scrutiny (taking in all information, including harsh criticisms), he should be prepared to have his own ministry held up to the same sort of thing. On the other hand, I can understand why, as a human being, he would feel hurt and threatened by the possibility. By the same token, I think Church leaders (and apologists) are also human beings, and it hurts and threatens when their work is examined and criticized in an uncharitable way. It takes a strong person or institution to take such potential abuse.

As far as the role of the Maxwell Institute, I think withholding publication was the right thing. In a sense, the MI is a quasi-official organ of the Church, and I do not think a quasi-official organ of the Church should be engaged in what could be perceived as an uncharitable evaluation of other Church members. (I would think the same thing about MI's taking on in an uncharitable way members with more religiously "right wing" positions). If the powers that be perceived the potential piece about John as crossing the line, I completely agree and understand. We don't need more internecine warfare among the LDS fomented or fueled by quasi-official organs, even if some may consider other LDS to be "wolfs in sheep clothing" or as intellectual "white washers."

I don't have a problem if John's critics, in the unofficial sphere, want to tear him apart all that they wish (including on this board). But doing so in a quasi-official Church organ troubles me. (The same thing is true of Dan's critics--they should not be permitted to launch those criticism through quasi-official organs, and to the extent Dan's release was done in such a way that implicitly expressed disapproval of his work, I think it was wrong. Clearly wrong.)

Link to comment

I certainly don't, for the simple reason that I know his version of that story is patently false.

I have learned to assume that everything John Dehlin does is driven by his overwhelming need to draw attention to himself. I have also learned that he has no compunction whatsoever to twist the truth in order to present himself as someone of importance who possesses power and influence.

As the de facto leader of the alienated Latter-day Saints who once flew the Mormonstories banner, Dehlin was able to enjoy some measure of that sense of importance he craves. Within the Church, Dehlin will never be able to replicate the sense of power and influence he enjoyed over the course of the past few years. Therefore I can confidently predict that this will be his last rebound back into church activity, and it will not last very long. Whether or not he can once again reclaim the scepter of his former influence among his apostate friends remains to be seen. But I doubt it. Rather, I suspect he will then see fulfilled at least one portion of Joseph Smith's often-quoted prophecy: "[He] shall be despised by those that [once] flattered [him]."

Couldn't agree more, from what I have seen so far.

Link to comment
Man, those guys hate you and DCP over at that hate-filled joint.

LOL. They really, really do. And it's amusing, in a bleak sort of way, because their complaint about us is that we're mean, hateful, and nasty. It's as clear a case of projection as I've ever seen.

oh come on, but Kishkumen, who knows more about it than you apparently, said it was quite a scene and has been captured on peoples phones as recordings. Alright, I need to get out of this stuff. Them guys are a hoot, so much so, I guess I can't help it.

Kishkumen is driven, to an extent that I've only recently begun to realize, by deep, consuming, personal hatred for several people, and it makes him (among other things) pathetically gullible. He eats up Scratch's nonsense with a voracious and uncritical appetite, presumably because the nonsense confirms his hatreds. But it leaves him ravenous for still more, and on it goes.

It's too bad. I think he's a bright fellow, but he's been grievously warped by the environment he's chosen for himself.

And, for that matter, while I've marveled at Scratch's -- my Malevolent Stalker's -- ability to keep this going for at least six years now, Kishkumen has been trotting along faithfully at Scratch's side for that entire time. Occasionally wandering off the path, but almost always very quickly coming back obediently to heel.

Scratch and lostindc and the gang have been in overdrive for the past few days, adding whole new volumes to the demonology they've crafted. It's truly a thing of wonder.

Link to comment

Dan:

This chronology just does not work. You had already pulled Greg’s essay on the request of Jerry Bradford on the basis of a memo Cecil Samuelson had written in which he indicated, among other things, that many faithful Latter-day Saints, and also the donors to BYU, were profoundly troubled by Dehlin’s activities and opinions. Samuelson also indicated in very strong language that he did not accept, support or approve of anything that Dehlin has ever done or said. And then he added that he thought that the Brethren wanted to deal with Dehlin problem in the own time and in their own way. It was Samuelson’s hunch about what he thought that the Brethren desired that led to the request that you pull Greg’s paper. I wrote down this operative language from that memo in my diary when I had a few minutes to examine the document that led to your instantly pulling Greg Smith’s essay. The working FAIR list has seen my notes on Samuelson’s memo. In addition, I know where there is at least one copy of that memo.

To put the matter bluntly: nothing that took place on 29 March 2012 could have had a thing to do with Dehlin’s much earlier frantic appeals to Elders Jensen and Holland, and Hans Mattson, and emeritus Area Seventy from Sweden, and to three LDS scholars (Bushman, Barlow and Givens) to try to censer Greg’s paper. So Dehlin had already pulled every string he had prior to my conversation with him at UVU. He told me at UVU that he had already had a conversation with Elder Holland and had him in his pocket.

Samuelson’s argument in that memo was that the Maxwell Institute should never publish a thing that is controversial, since doing that would presumably somehow tarnish Elder Maxwell’s name. By firing you, Jerry Bradford has now opened the door to the eventual circulation of Greg Smith’s essays. This should not be good news for Dehlin, since he apparently wants to make a living counseling troubled LDS couples. But having all this controversy about his status in the Church, whether he believes in God, or that there even was a Jesus of Nazareth, and that the atonement is essentially bunk is not the sort of thing that is likely to recommend him for his line of work. If he were to be the object of Church discipline, he would be like an lawyer or medical doctor who has had his licence suspended.

Now, of course, I would be delighted to see my former student turn back to God, and become a loyal, faithful Latter-day Saint. I genuinely hope that this is what is beginning to take place. And it this is the case, he should not have the least problem ceasing to tell fibs and spreading falsehoods about you and me and about others who defend the faith of the Saints. And he should not have any problem with having his previous disaffection sorted in public, since it is clear that he has done considerable damage to the Church and specifically to those of us who have been engaged in defending what hopefully is now his faith.

I love to see those who for whatever reason have been for whatever reason disaffected repent and return to faith in Jesus Christ..

Link to comment
I think Church leaders (and apologists) are also human beings, and it hurts and threatens when their work is examined and criticized in an uncharitable way.

This, though, is a case where that work is being criticized without examination.

As far as the role of the Maxwell Institute, I think withholding publication was the right thing. In a sense, the MI is a quasi-official organ of the Church, and I do not think a quasi-official organ of the Church should be engaged in what could be perceived as an uncharitable evaluation of other Church members. (I would think the same thing about MI's taking on in an uncharitable way members with more religiously "right wing" positions).

I'm against lack of charity anywhere.

But I'm not opposed to criticism. If faculty and institutions connected with BYU are never to be allowed to engage in criticism, that will bar us from doing book reviews, literary criticism, revisionist articles, historical arguments, and etc. There's a line, of course, but the question is where it's located.

If the powers that be perceived the potential piece about John as crossing the line, I completely agree and understand.

None of those powers had seen it.

But, of course, if they were told that it was going to accuse John Dehlin of complicity in a missionary's death, I can certainly understand why they would have hesitations. Trouble is, if they were told that, they were falsely informed and misled.

I don't have a problem if John's critics, in the unofficial sphere, want to tear him apart all that they wish (including on this board). But doing so in a quasi-official Church organ troubles me.

If Dr. Smith's essay crossed the line mentioned above, a quasi-official publication would be inappropriate, yes. But did it?

(The same thing is true of Dan's critics--they should not be permitted to launch those criticism through quasi-official organs, and to the extent Dan's release was done in such a way that implicitly expressed disapproval of his work, I think it was wrong. Clearly wrong.)

It was wrong.

Link to comment

@ Dan and Lou

I really am so clueless as to all that is going on, it's almost as if you guys are talking in code. So there is possibly stuff that I'm missing.

I was leaning toward the thought that you guys had the moral high ground on this but your last couple posts are making me doubt that. Just feels like there is a lot of talk about hate, supposed knowledge other peoples' negative motivations, and suggesting that others need to repent.

I'm not asking for a response (though I'll probably get one). I'm also not trying to insert myself into this discussion of which I am not knowledgeable. Just making a suggestion as an outsider observing the discussion.

Link to comment
Therefore Dehlin must now work to reclaim his "faithful Latter-day Saint bona fides" before he once again sets out to ravage the flock. However, in the future, I suspect he will do so within the confines of closed-door counseling sessions with struggling members, rather than via public "podcasts." Caveat emptor.

Exactly. I wish him all the best and hope he stays on track.

But I think it will take him a long long time to establish those "bona fides".

Link to comment

Lou:

I haven't sat down to try to work out the precise chronology, but I did just check to see that Dehlin's appeal to me was sent while I was back at Harvard on 25 March. (My brother had died two days before.) So, yes, if the UVU encounter occurred on 29 May, that can have had no influence on Dehlin's initial attempt to suppress the Smith/Dehlin essay.

I don't have a copy of the Samuelson memo. Bradford allowed me to read it, but didn't offer to give me a copy. I would be interested to read it again, if you ever come up with it.

My meeting with Bradford, which resulted in my immediate and explicit decision to withdraw the Smith/Dehlin essay, came, I believe, fairly late in May. I was just about to head off to Israel -- which is where, roughly two weeks later, I received the email from Bradford removing me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review and setting off the entire chain of events that followed (including my resignation as director of "advancement" for the Institute on both practical and ethical grounds).

Link to comment

It's as clear a case of projection as I've ever seen.

This hits the nail exactly, precisely, perfectly, dead-on-the-money-bullseye-on the head!

Link to comment
I was leaning toward the thought that you guys had the moral high ground on this but your last couple posts are making me doubt that. Just feels like there is a lot of talk about hate, supposed knowledge other peoples' negative motivations, and suggesting that others need to repent.

Well, perhaps I'm being too hasty when I read personal dislike into Kishkumen's language about us. Here's a sampling of it -- I'm leaving some out, and have culled it from only a single thread -- from within just the past twenty-four hours:

He's described Professor Midgley as "scary," "deceptive," "sick," "disturbed," a "prince of demons," "irrational," "nasty," "appalling," "vile," a liar, an "albatross on the neck of the LDS Church," and someone with no "decency." He's compared the two of us to "the Inquisition," "barracudas," and "cockroaches," pronouncing us "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," "bad men" who are guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before Church disciplinary councils and tried for our membership.

I think that, deep down, he really both likes and respects us, and just wants us to be more gentle in our rhetoric. Don't you?

And, trust me, Kishkumen's pal Scratch and some of the others there are dishing up pure demonizing fiction, complete with mythical pending Church disciplinary councils and insubordination to the leaders of the Church and "inquisitions" and . . . It's unutterably bizarre. But the folks over there seem to be a gullible bunch.

.

Edited by Daniel Peterson
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...