John Dehlin...Giant Killer

[Craig Paxton]

According to the SL Trib LDS apologist Daniel Peterson was canned in part due to a 100 page ad hominem attack on Mormon stories' John Dehlin.

Is there more to this story? Did Peterson AKA Ming the Merceless (his avatar) really get fired because an LDS GA friend of Dehlin's heard about this coming attack and made a few phone calls?

I'd love to hear more details...I never would have guessed that this is how DCP would fall...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/utes/54358137-78/mormon-studies-peterson-institute.html.csp

Edited June 24, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[blackstrap]

Yes,in the same way Mussolini died from a rope burn.

[cwald]

I'm still waiting to read the 100 page hit piece. Where is it, and will it ever published? Is it for real?

That accusation, and DCP article about Wolves in Sheep clothing...is what brought me over here to find out what is really going on in the LDS church. it has created quite a stir in mormon world...especially the DAMU.

So yeah...maybe there is something to the SLC claim?

[ERayR]

According to the SL Trib LDS apologist Daniel Peterson was canned in part due to a 100 page ad hominem attack on Mormon stories' John Dehlin.

Is there more to this story? Did Peterson AKA Ming the Merceless (his avatar) really get fired because an LDS GA friend of Dehlin's heard about this coming attack and made a few phone calls?

I'd love to hear more details...I never would have guessed that this is how DCP would fall...

http://www.sltrib.co...titute.html.csp

Haven't you ever heard the old adage - Never believe everything you see in the newspaper?

[Craig Paxton]

I'm wondering why Peterson would try to publish his hit piece after having been a guest on Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast? Peterson seemed like a teddy bear in that interview. That's just not polite behavior on petersons part.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

Haven't you ever heard the old adage - Never believe everything you see in the newspaper?

Fair enough...so what parts are to be disbelieved?

[MitoticSlime]

Brant Gardner said in one of the other threads that the John Dehlin piece was not the cause of the firing, because this change in direction for the MI has been in the works for a long time. Although, maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I have no direct knowledge about it, just speculating.

[ERayR]

Fair enough...so what parts are to be disbelieved?

There are some threads from the past couple of days. Read them and get up to date.

[Craig Paxton]

Irrespective....it's been a good week for apostates...

[rodheadlee]

Irrespective....it's been a good week for apostates...

That's great, they have their reward.

[wenglund]

Irrespective....it's been a good week for apostates...

As I mentioned in another thread, the apostates are "winning" in the same sense that Charlie Sheen was "winning."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

Sadly, the giant that Dehlin allegedly slew is the Bran the Blessed of our times. Doubtless, we will have twenty years with his noble head to advise and feast with us before we have to bury it in the sacred mound where it will protect us as long as ravens fly above.

[Craig Paxton]

As I mentioned in another thread, the apostates are "winning" in the same sense that Charlie Sheen was "winning."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Relax wade. I said nothing of winning merely said its been a good week...But look on the bright side. Now Peterson will have more time to spend here

Edited June 24, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Calm]

I'm wondering why Peterson would try to publish his hit piece after having been a guest on Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast? Peterson seemed like a teddy bear in that interview. That's just not polite behavior on petersons part.

By this standard, Dehlin's behaviour isn't all that civil considering how Dr. Peterson was gracious enough to accept Dehlin's invitation to appear on Dehlin's podcast.

[Craig Paxton]

By this standard, Dehlin's behaviour isn't all that civil considering how Dr. Peterson was gracious enough to accept Dehlin's invitation to appear on Dehlin's podcast.

Keep in mind no one that I know of has even read the ad hominem piece. But assuming that is was as claimed. You're suggesting that Dehlin should have been ok with this assumed hatchet piece to be printed?

Edited June 24, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Calm]

Keep in mind no one that I know of has even read the ad hominum piece. But assuming that is was as claimed. You're suggesting that Dehlin should have been ok with this assumed hatchet piece to be printed?

You are the one suggesting that because Dr. Peterson went on a podcast that he somehow owes something to the maker of the podcast. I am simply applying that suggested standard.

Are you suggesting that Dehlin's going public with various emails, including without permissions Dr. Peterson's, or that going to a GA to put pressure on Dr. Peterson before giving Dr. Peterson a chance to respond was civil?

[BCSpace]

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.

[Duncan]

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.

I think some people at first attracted to what ever he offers, were later repelled by him and left even more confused or whatever, this is purely anecdotal of course as I know about 5 people like that but 5 is still 5

[Evangeline]

Keep in mind no one that I know of has even read the ad hominem piece. But assuming that is was as claimed. You're suggesting that Dehlin should have been ok with this assumed hatchet piece to be printed?

I certainly would not expect Dehlin to be happy with this assumed hatchet piece. Would not most people be a little "uncomfortable" when their work is critiqued? However, I thought it was par for the course that the person in question could then offer a well-reasoned rebuttal. If they must resort to tactics such as censorship, well, it gives me the impression that their position is ultimately untenable.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Evangeline

[cwald]

Dehlin hasn't accomplished anything. The doctrine of the Church has not really changed in many many decades....

Really? Well, maybe John Dehlin just wants reformation of some church policy? Has church policy changed in the last decades?

Blacks and the priesthood, temple ceremonies, view of homosexuality, oral sex, requirements to serve a mission, three hour block, garment modifications, temple recommend questions and interpretations etc etc etc

reformation has almost always come from the masses...bottom up. It rarely comes from the leadership or the top down. I seriously doubt John wants to change the church doctrine. Change church policy and practices? Yeah. That very well could be his motivation...and god bless him for it.

[Damien the Leper]

Really? Well, maybe John Dehlin just wants reformation of some church policy? Has church policy changed in the last decades?

Blacks and the priesthood, temple ceremonies, view of homosexuality, oral sex, requirements to serve a mission, three hour block, garment modifications, temple recommend questions and interpretations etc etc etc

reformation has almost always come from the masses...bottom up. It rarely comes from the leadership or the top down. I seriously doubt John wants to change the church doctrine. Change church policy and practices? Yeah. That very well could be his motivation...and god bless him for it.

To quote a former professor of mine:

The problem with Reformed Theology and the Reformation is that it stopped Reforming.

[Duncan]

Really? Well, maybe John Dehlin just wants reformation of some church policy? Has church policy changed in the last decades?

Blacks and the priesthood, temple ceremonies, view of homosexuality, oral sex, requirements to serve a mission, three hour block, garment modifications, temple recommend questions and interpretations etc etc etc

reformation has almost always come from the masses...bottom up. It rarely comes from the leadership or the top down. I seriously doubt John wants to change the church doctrine. Change church policy and practices? Yeah. That very well could be his motivation...and god bless him for it.

none of which the John Dehlin's of the world had anything to do with in changing. It's also interesting to see why reformations start and stop, change from within is real changing but from without it isn't anything. If Dehlin wants the Church to fit his image then that's his deal.

[Calm]

reformation has almost always come from the masses...bottom up.

CFR

[Calm]

I certainly would not expect Dehlin to be happy with this assumed hatchet piece. Would not most people be a little "uncomfortable" when their work is critiqued? However, I thought it was par for the course that the person in question could then offer a well-reasoned rebuttal. If they must resort to tactics such as censorship, well, it gives me the impression that their position is ultimately untenable.

Especially if they make claims to being supporters of total openness and full disclosure being the best way to engage history and other human endeavours.

[gtaggart]

CFR

Ah calimoriah, you're such a wet blanket. Now he's gonna have support his claim. Darn it.