Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Calm

Addendum to closed thread about alleged Elder Packer request

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hopefully mods will just merge this with previous thread because even with this info, I don't think there is anything new to discuss.  This just further confirms previous claims.

Greg Smith is a friend (he has given me some nice medical advice in the past), so I decided to ask him for clarification about the latest speculation (I believe stem was the first to mention it on this board) of Lou getting the Dehlin article confused with the earlier Packer article.  Greg has given me permission to quote his response:

Quote

It [him being asked by one of the brethern] never, ever, in any way, happened. I wrote both the Pres Packer material and the Mormon Stories material entirely on my own initiative. I wasn’t even assigned it by the other editors. I presented both as mostly-done drafts to them.

If we had had a direct line to Pres Packer, we would have asked what was going on with our sudden ouster by Jerry. But we didn’t. And the apostles didn’t know about it at all until after it was a done deal

Also he volunteered (I had included Dan's comment as context):

Quote

 

Quote

****"Finally, it's true that Dr. Bradford disliked the notion that LDS scholars should ever be at the beck and call of the leaders of the Church.  We disagreed on how scholars should respond to requests from Church headquarters.  But such requests were, to put it mildly, exceedingly few and far between.  It was, essentially, a theoretical issue.  More relevant was the question of whether we should, on occasion, DEFEND the Church and its leaders.  My position was that we should.  His position was that we should not."

 

 

This is true, in my experience. I can never ever remember us getting an assignment from them via Dan when I was an editor.

 

One 70 did ask Lou**** if he knew anything about John Dehlin, and Lou told him what he’d learned from reading my mostly done review.

*****Calm:  Lou has mentioned this happening in a discussion between friends, not in any official capacity.  I believe he was fired from MI by then.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I am off to PT and have no plans to respond as .I think it is perfectly clear.  You want to speculate, please go elsewhere.  This is just an FYI for the other thread that I went after before it was closed and think enough would be interested in to justify making the mods work a bit by merging.

Here is a link to one of the posts talking about Greg's other article as an option just in case the mods' just lock this one down:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71425-a-course-correction-for-the-maxwell-institute/?do=findComment&comment=1209880180

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

PS:  I have bugged Greg several times now to make sure I have gotten details right, not going to do it again.

Share this post


Link to post

I was upset to see the previous thread closed before Hope could comply with the CFR .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

So it sounds like both Greg and Dan are saying that essentially everything Midgley said in his very detailed messages was materially false, that church HQ not only didn't direct the article on Dehlin, but that church HQ never gave any directions to write any articles in defense of the church or its leaders.  So essentially isn't this akin to saying that Midgley either intentionally lied, or he completely imagined his greatly detailed recollection?  

I still maintain that people will have to decide what they believe is accurate about the comments around these events.  Did a rogue apologist have a senior moment and completely fabricate an elaborate story, or did he let the cat out the bag, or is it a combination of exaggeration on some elements of the story and disclosing facts that others didn't want disclosed.  People will have to decide what they believe.  

Edited by hope_for_things
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, The Nehor said:

In the interest of symmetry I would like to insinuate that Hope is a liar since he is doing it for everyone else. I hope this adds as much to the discussion as his contributions.

I'm not calling anyone a liar.  I'm saying we should consider the evidence and consider that Midgley might have been telling the truth on some of what he first disclosed.  Those who want to dismiss everything Midgley said, are also potentially insinuating that he lied or that he completely imagined it all.  

How do you explain what Midgley said earlier?  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Hope, why does Midgley (or the church, apostles, Dan, Greg, or Oscar the Grouch) have to have some nefarious reason? Mistakes happen, mistakes of understanding happen all the time. Perhaps Midgley simply understood wrong and when trying to correct himself he put in what he understood to happen or mixed up things. It all didn't have to have an evil purpose. I recommend some earl Grey, a warm fire and a good book.

When you say he mixed things up, that is implying that some of the facts he had were accurate, but that he might have got them in the wrong order or got the names involved wrong, or the timing of events wrong.  But that's not what Greg and Dan are saying.  They are saying he got everything wrong, from soup to nuts, and I think thats a little different than saying he got confused and mixed things up.  

I find these series of unfortunate events quite interesting, but I have no dog in this fight.  I think it important to remember that there are parties participating in the discussion that absolutely have personal self interest at stake.  

Share this post


Link to post

People can say something not true, without lying.

We all get that, right?  That's like fifth grade Knowing-What-Words-Mean, yes?  There's making mistakes, there's mis-speaking, faulty recollections, and miscommunications.  And that's just on the part of the person trying to communicate.  Don't even get me started on the person hearing, what with all their belief-window-translating, mis-hearing, incorrectly interpreting, worldview/language differences.

I mean, I'm not the only guy who thinks so, right?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:
20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no dog in this fight

You saying this just blows me away considering your actual posts. 

I have an opinion, but I don't have a dog in the fight.  What do you think it means to have a dog in the fight? 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, hope_for_things said:

I have an opinion, but I don't have a dog in the fight.  What do you think it means to have a dog in the fight? 

“To have a stake in the outcome of the problem at hand”

You continuing to bring up speculation that has been counter implies s stake 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:
22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think it important to remember that there are parties participating in the discussion that absolutely have personal self interest at stake. 

And here we go again with nudge, nudge, wink, wink. 

Have you ever been skeptical of something that was said by a party that had a personal interest in a portraying a particular image?  I would hope so.  Or should we just accept everything that people say at face value, and if they retract their earlier statements, accept the retractions at face value, never critically thinking about what might have contributed to either statement?  

What if Midgley revises his retraction statement, do we believe the revision?  What if he then revises the subsequent revision?  What do we believe, do we just believe the things that confirm our earlier beliefs, and ignore everything else? 

Whats the most reasonable approach, since you don't want to consider that my perspective might have any validity at all, and you want to ascribe poor motives on my part to the things I'm saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

“To have a stake in the outcome of the problem at hand”

You continuing to bring up speculation that has been counter implies s stake 

How is that a stake in the outcome?  I have no connections to any of the parties involved.  

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

[...] that's not what Greg and Dan are saying.  They are saying he [Midgley] got everything wrong, from soup to nuts, [...]

CFR

 

Quote

I find these series of unfortunate events quite interesting, but I have no dog in this fight. 

You do have a cat in the fight (a curious one). Or, perhaps your "dog in the fight" is the opportunity to disparage the church, leaders, Dan, Greg, Midgley, etc.

 

Quote

I think it important to remember that there are parties participating in the discussion that absolutely have personal self interest at stake.  

However, some of those self interests for you, appear to be, a chance to disparage.

Why be that way? What is your purpose for Midgley this, Midgley that (interchangeable with "Midgley" can be with "Dan", "Greg", "Q15" etc.)...

If you do not know any of the above, why do you choose to imply they are liars? or have enormous egos? I just do not understand people, who have "no dog in the fight" why would they persist in disparaging if they have no animosity toward them?

 

Kindness heals.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, webbles said:

It sure sounds like you are calling Dr. Peterson and Dr. Smith liars.

No, I'm asking what Dan and Greg's position is saying about Midgley's comments.  What do you think they are saying about Midgley?  

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How is that a stake in the outcome?  I have no connections to any of the parties involved.  

Doesn’t mean you don’t want a particular outcome. 

We don’t just have one party each telling different stories. We have four parties telling one story l, including two directly involved and two who have heard discussions about it from the other three since it happened over five years ago and one telling a different one who has retracted. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Anijen said:
46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

[...] that's not what Greg and Dan are saying.  They are saying he [Midgley] got everything wrong, from soup to nuts, [...]

CFR

Can you clarify the CFR specifically?  Dan said earlier in this very thread that Greg's recollection "conforms entirely with my knowledge and experience".  You have the comments from Greg above as well.  I'm not sure what it is you want me to reference, if you've been following events, Midgley made comments about the Greg Smith essay including detail about Packer ordering its production and other details, then Greg Smith disputed his points and Midgley apologized and said that Greg was correct and that he got the facts wrong, that is a very high level summary of some relevant parts (Midgley disclosed some other things as well that were discussed in the now closed thread).  Since I"m not 100% sure of the reasons for the thread closure, I want to be careful not to get into trouble with the mods by bringing the entire discussion back up. 

I encourage you to go read their comments on Dan's Patheos Blog along with the comments here if you're not up to speed on the entire situation.   Those links are in the now closed thread.  

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

You do have a cat in the fight (a curious one). Or, perhaps your "dog in the fight" is the opportunity to disparage the church, leaders, Dan, Greg, Midgley, etc.

I'm not attempting to disparage the church or anyone, just commenting on events and sharing my perspective.  The only really uncharitable thing I've said on either thread was in my first post where I was talking about Dan having a large ego.  I do somewhat regret saying that now, as I don't really even know the guy personally, and its not a nice thing to say.  Let me go on record as saying I'm sorry for saying that Dan has a huge ego, I would like to elevate the discussion and not name call, so I apologize for that statement, and I will try to do better going forward.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm asking what Dan and Greg's position is saying about Midgley's comments.  What do you think they are saying about Midgley?  

So you are saying that Dr. Peterson and Dr. Smith are calling Midgley a liar?  If so, where are they saying that?  I don't see them calling him a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Doesn’t mean you don’t want a particular outcome. 

We don’t just have one party each telling different stories. We have four parties telling one story l, including two directly involved and two who have heard discussions about it from the other three since it happened over five years ago and one telling a different one who has retracted. 

The only outcome I care about is understanding the truth as best as I can from my perspective.  

Just so I'm clear, who are the four parties telling one story, I'm thinking Dan and Greg are the directly involved ones, but who are the other two you say were indirectly privy to these events?  

Also, could you comment on what your position says about Midgley.  Are you saying that he intentionally didn't tell the truth or that he imagined his very detailed account, or something in between the two?  Can you elaborate on what your opinion is on what Midgley said?  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, webbles said:
19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm asking what Dan and Greg's position is saying about Midgley's comments.  What do you think they are saying about Midgley?  

So you are saying that Dr. Peterson and Dr. Smith are calling Midgley a liar?  If so, where are they saying that?  I don't see them calling him a liar.

I'm asking that question myself.  What are Dan and Greg saying about Midgley then?  Are they saying he intentionally completely fabricated his very detailed account, or are they saying he imagined everything and got it all wrong?  

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...