John Dehlin...Giant Killer

[why me]

You make a good point. I cannot defend Dehlin for trying to suppress the article. If I were his advisor, I would have suggested taking the 100 page hit, and making a 100 page rebuttal.

I said the same thing months ago. But maybe he has something to hide. Let me put it this way: if he allowed the piece to be published and his reputation was still in tack he would have come out a hero with the exmormons. And they would have rushed to defend him. But now, it is difficult for him to call for openness when he also attempted to suppress information about himself.

[Libs]

It is amazing the people cannot see the hypocrisy in all this. John wanted to suppress a piece about him because he was afraid of the impact it would have on his reputation. But he wants the church to act differently be open about its history etc.

That may or may not be a good comparison. It depends on what was in the piece, on Dehlin, and how it was handled. Just because someone is directly quoted, doesn't mean an accurate picture of them or their work, is being portrayed. The same can be said of "church history", as we all well know. Just because something is quoted from a past leader or from the infamous Journal of Discourses, doesn't mean an accurate portrayal of LDS history is being promoted. That's why there was a need for church "apologetics" to begin with. A lot of information out there from critics, but not a lot of understanding.

[Calm]

But now, it is difficult for him to call for openness when he also attempted to suppress information about himself.

I would be interested to see any actual change in his behaviour that indicates he finds it difficult now.

[Calm]

That may or may not be a good comparison. It depends on what was in the piece, on Dehlin, and how it was handled.

But he didn't know what was in the piece, that is what is so astonishing.

[Libs]

But he didn't know what was in the piece, that is what is so astonishing.

Yes, I know. But, he had people whom I assume had seen it (?), telling him it was nothing but a "hit piece". Perhaps he trusted their judgment.

[Calm]

Yes, I know. But, he had people whom I assume had seen it (?), telling him it was nothing but a "hit piece". Perhaps he trusted their judgment.

This is specifically what was said in the email Mr. Dehlin received:

Hi, John. I don't want to get in the middle of any drama, and especially don't want to get any started up, but I did think you deserve a heads up, in case you are not already aware: I spoke with a friend (who also happens to be one of your Facebook Friends) who works at the Maxwell Institute today, and he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece. You may already be aware of it, and maybe aren't too concerned what a paranoid ultra-conservative apologetic group was to say anyway. My friend did say that he will be attempting to dissuade them over the next few days from putting out the piece. Hopefully he will be successful and the drama will be avoided completely.

[ERayR]

The incident in Guatemala I cited when I got nailed with a CFR was formative for Dahlin. He began to study the church's administration and history in great depth, which in turn led to a crisis in his faith. This eventually resolved as his current status as a kind of part-time Mormon. But at the core is a desire to get at the truth. At the very least, he doesn't come across as someone who would excuse sinful behavior.

There is really no such thing as a part-time Mormon.

[ERayR]

No, it's not okay to lie to your spouse. Have you been married for 22 years? If so, then you would not have asked that question.

The quest was asked because there was some doubt about what you believed not Calmoriah.

[Libs]

Thanks, Calmoriah. I did read that, when it was first posted, but couldn't remember the details, which is why I put a question mark in my post. I guess John didn't want to take the chance that it might not be a "hit piece"...especially, if he was not given access to it, in advance. I doubt the article (at a hundred pages) is flattering...and whether or not it was "accurate" might even be a matter of opinion. I would like to see it, to judge for myself. I kind of wish John had allowed it to be published..and THEN responded to whatever inaccuracies he felt were in it. But, that's water under the bridge. I do think it will come out, one way or the other....unless people on high, in the church, really discourage it, which is possible, I suppose.?

[Calm]

I do think it will come out, one way or the other....unless people on high, in the church, really discourage it, which is possible, I suppose.?

All things are possible when humans are involved.

[why me]

I do think it will come out, one way or the other....unless people on high, in the church, really discourage it, which is possible, I suppose.?

If the people on high do not want it published that is only their opinion. But greg can still publish it. He will not be excommunicated over it. It is an article nothing more.

[Bob Oliverio]

Very well. I will give your absurd questions some attention after all.

Neither. If you had read much stuff produced by the MI, you would be aware that there is a variety of thought published, as should be relatively apparent just looking at the number of authors. Not only that, but as Dr. Hamblin and others have stated the new vision as stated is not seen as a bad one, it is that the old vision has been neglected contrary to commitments that were made.

No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).

No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).

No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).

No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).

No one impacted by the dismissals has made claims that the Church itself is involved that I recall, in fact the opposite has occurred. If there is someone interpreting the events as a betrayal by the Church, it is likely they are not aware enough of the actual facts to draw any sort of conclusion and from what I've seen written on the board, at most there are very few proponents of the board who are even considering this a possibility, most dismiss it.

Thanks for your partial response.  But it really is  what I would equate to a legal answer with "there is no evidence of....." in most of your response.  It tells me that the questions asked do strike a cord with those at risk here.

[Tacenda]

Thanks, Calmoriah. I did read that, when it was first posted, but couldn't remember the details, which is why I put a question mark in my post. I guess John didn't want to take the chance that it might not be a "hit piece"...especially, if he was not given access to it, in advance. I doubt the article (at a hundred pages) is flattering...and whether or not it was "accurate" might even be a matter of opinion. I would like to see it, to judge for myself. I kind of wish John had allowed it to be published..and THEN responded to whatever inaccuracies he felt were in it. But, that's water under the bridge. I do think it will come out, one way or the other....unless people on high, in the church, really discourage it, which is possible, I suppose.?

I agree, I don't think John or anyone else would want a "hit piece" that possibly might be a character assasination (my words).

Pure speculation here, but could it be that in Greg Smith's paper it says basically the same thing that Dan Peterson wrote later in his article about "wolves in sheeps clothing" but leaving JD's name out? Which he may have done because Greg Smith's paper was intercepted. And by going around the system, got himself fired? Maybe something along those lines? No one, including John Dehlin, likes being referred to as a "wolf in sheeps clothing". The meaning of which is "someone who hides malicious intent under the guise of kindliness". Would anyone here want someone to say this about them? Anything more than this Greg or Dan could have been sued for defamation of character.

[Calm]

It tells me that the questions asked do strike a cord with those at risk here.

Please never take up the career of a therapist.

[Hayds]

Folks are giving too much credit to Dehlin over this DCP situation. This is entirely about a change in direction for NAMIR. I don't know Bradford other than he is the head of the MI, and if he wants to change the direction of the MI he probably has the authority to do so even if he is a jerk or inept as everyone on this board says. This was probably already coming down the pipeline before Dehlin inquired about the article on him. Some of you guys need to take off the tin foil hats. Dehlin is not connected to Romney in anyway as was mentioned in a previous post. he worked for Bain as a software programmer long after Romney left or had anything to do with Bain. Dehlin isn't leading this charge and wields no political power with the GA's. Trust me.

Dehlin caters to the NOM crowd which existed long before he showed up on the scene.

[Calm]

Thanks for the info about the job stuff, Hayds.

Mr. Oliverio, could you please explain to me how your reasoning about my answers does not resemble the below (and this is a serious question because I can't for the life of me figure out your reasoning save on the principle being used in my example):

Young man at party: I so can tell that Ashley totally into you, guy.

Other young man: Why do you say that, she hasn't said a word to me all night, hasn't even looked my way!

First young man: Exactly, dude!

(Pardon the dated language, it's been awhile since I've been in the dating scene)

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

CFR

Based on first hand and personal knowledge of people who have been influenced and led away from the church and Dehlin used as their source for support.

[Deborah]

I just want to add, even if Dehlin's intent was not to lead people away from the church or to give rationalization for their doing so, His actions could have no other outcome given those who are looking for an excuse. That is why I think he was on the wrong track from the get-go.

[Bob Oliverio]

Please never take up the career of a therapist.

Given the difference in the number of our respective posts on this board, it leaves little doubt who has a career and who, with direction,  has time for one!!

[Libs]

I agree, I don't think John or anyone else would want a "hit piece" that possibly might be a character assasination (my words).

Pure speculation here, but could it be that in Greg Smith's paper it says basically the same thing that Dan Peterson wrote later in his article about "wolves in sheeps clothing" but leaving JD's name out? Which he may have done because Greg Smith's paper was intercepted. And by going around the system, got himself fired? Maybe something along those lines? No one, including John Dehlin, likes being referred to as a "wolf in sheeps clothing". The meaning of which is "someone who hides malicious intent under the guise of kindliness". Would anyone here want someone to say this about them? Anything more than this Greg or Dan could have been sued for defamation of character.

No, I don't think anyone would like to be called a wolf in sheep's clothing, but that's a perfectly valid "opinion" that people have a right to express, if that's what they believe. I think John Dehlin is doing some very good things for people who fall into certain category of the church and fills a much needed gap between critic and faithful LDS, but that's strictly my opinion. I can certainly understand how faithful members could see him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing", even though I, personally, disagree with that characterization. I lean towards allowing people to express their opinions...get it out in the open, where it can be discussed.

[CASteinman]

You think the change in the blacks and priesthood just popped into SWK brain one day...and had nothing to do with the civil rights movement, and Stanford rebellion, and from the thousands of members writing letters pleading for a change.

I don't believe that those things had any bit of an impact at all.

[CASteinman]

I just want to add, even if Dehlin's intent was not to lead people away from the church or to give rationalization for their doing so, His actions could have no other outcome given those who are looking for an excuse. That is why I think he was on the wrong track from the get-go.

I fully agree.

[CASteinman]

Not at all, but I have lied to my parents about my cancer, because they are extremely aged and frail, and if they were to worry about me, they would be on oxygen at the very least. So that lie is a good thing to do.

I used to believe that lies were always bad. I no longer believe that. I recall a man saying once that:

If your wife asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" you should not reply "Its not the dress".

[TomesD]

Dehlin hasn't accomplished anything. The doctrine of the Church has not really changed in many many decades. Sonia Johnson couldn't change it. Ed Decker couldn't change it. The Tanner's couldn't change it. The antiMormon evangelical movement has lost the battle (and they don't even know it). The homosexual lobby has failed to change it. Likewise, Dehlin will also fail to change it.

Well said!

[Calm]

Given the difference in the number of our respective posts on this board, it leaves little doubt who has a career and who, with direction, has time for one!!

Definitely. Since I am homebound and even bed bound much of the time, I am very grateful for this board for a social and mental outlet.