John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Calm]

Lou:

I haven't sat down to try to work out the precise chronology

Here are two threads that might help you reconstruct the timing of what happened: (this is the one that includes the email exchange between you and Dehlin.)

[Calm]

Libs just indicated that he is " pretty clear, by now" about what I said to Dehlin on 29 March. "But," Libs then added the following: "I don't think it was, at all, clear to John Dehlin, at the time...and perhaps he is still not 'trusting' this new information...if he's even aware of it." But the fact is that Dehlin could not have formed the opinion that Greg Smith had included a word about the death of a missionary in Guatemala in the essay that had already been pulled by Dan Peterson from the projected Review. Why? He merely indicated what he knew about that incident and and we moved on to some other matter. The part that upset Dehlin that day was my mention of his having boasted of not believing in God, or that there was even a Jesus, and that the atonement is bunk. That is when he called me a liar over and over again. But my paraphrase of what he had said was accurate. He was clearly concerned, not about Greg Smith's essay, but what I told him I intended to included in a short note--my way of describing what was going to be the "Editor's Introduction" to the next issue of the Review. Dehlin was already gloating over having censored Greg Smith's paper, though I am not sure he even accomplished that.

The date of his emails:

From: John Dehlin <johndehlin@gmail.com>

Date: March 26, 2012 12:07:10 AM EDT

To: XXXXXX

Cc: "Daniel C. Peterson" xxxx Richard Bushman xxxxx, Terryl Givens xxxxx, <xxxxxx

Subject: Potential Hit Piece from the Maxwell Institute

Elder XXXXX (cc'ing Daniel Peterson, Phil Barlow, Richard Bushman, Hans Mattsson and Terryl Givens)

[Scott Lloyd]

lol. I'm finding this thread and the mirror on both NOM and 'that other board' to be quite amusing. I'm not sure why my point of view has been brought into this.

Only because I momentarily confused you with rockpond. end of story. It's my fault, if you need to place blame.

[Calm]

Thanks for posting this calmoriah.

It doesn't even mention John Dehlin though. Was he on board the boat or not?

He wasn't, he was a friend of one of the missionaries, a former companion, IIRC. I don't know if he was in any position of authority over the group either, can't remember that. Dehlin posted a bit on the story eons ago on the old ZLMB board IIRC and it might still be there and again IIRC, he gave what his relationship was to the other young men at the time. If you need me to see if I can track down more info, I can try...I now have a free evening since I discovered my recommend expired last night at midnight....I turned into a pumpkin and didn't even realize it until now. I don't see it as a big enough issue to go into very deeply because whatever happened back then has nothing to do with the issue at hand save for the misunderstandings about it. I only posted the info so that people would understand the context of Lou asking Dehlin about it.

My memory says the young men were out on the boat going to a place to get the record that was outside their zone area and that would have ended up with them not back at home at curfew time (or whatever missionaries call when they are supposed to be at home at night), they were apparently trying to rush a baptism through...which hooked up into some of Dehlin's concerns about inappropriate baptisms and such that were apparently taking place at that time. What role, if any, Dehlin might have had....such as an authority pushing the young men to increase stats or another overenthusiastic missionary or the missionary with the voice of wisdom trying to stop it or innocent bystander or totally unaware of their actions prior to hearing of their deaths just like everyone else, I don't have a clue on though I might have had more info in the past and just forgotten it. The only hint I've think I am remembering is that I think Dehlin said somewhere he had been at least for one of the missionaries who died a former zone leader.

There was nothing for Dehlin to be ashamed about as far as I could see unless he had been involved in the push for baptisms that drove the young missionaries down there and then claimed he hadn't been (but that is an issue about his behaviour now, not what happened then). I see no issue if he repented of involvement, being wiser and learning from his mistakes and wanting to help repair and prevent the same thing happening again....I find that very admirable in fact as I would him trying to change things even if he hadn't been doing it himself.

Lou mentioned that Dehlin had made complaints after his mission about inappropriate baptisms, linking them to an assistant of the MP (don't know the correct title) rather than the Mission President at this point so I am assuming he was aware of them going on...I can't remember if Dehlin stated he was part of it and then regretted it later or was never part of it.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I can't remember. When did I pull the Smith/Dehlin essay? Wasn't it late May -- and not late March?

Dan, I just sent you an email to your byu address marked "Urgent" that should help get the timing straight.

[Singularity]

And Church leadership had nothing to do with those changes.

Them's the facts.

Church leadership had nothing to do with changes at the Maxwell Institute? How is that possible? Does The Church not oversee BYU publications? If not Church leadership, then who? Brother Bradford? Was he not appointed by Church leadership? It's a bit disconcerting to think that BYU publications are not being run by Church leadership. Where does the buck stop for the Maxwell Institute if not at the desk of a Church leader?

[Calm]

It's a bit disconcerting to think that BYU publications are not being run by Church leadership.

Why? Why can't BYU use the same kind of procedures that other universities do?

[Singularity]

Why? Why can't BYU use the same kind of procedures that other universities do?

I suppose BYU could. Does it? I thought the Brethren ran the university. Don't members of the Quorum of the Twelve sit on the Board of Trustees? Is BYU just like other universities or different in this regard?

[Calm]

I would suspect there is some interaction but even in a typical university trustees aren't running about making decisions constantly and I think with all the rest of the church work that the BYU trustees are involved in, they tend to keep interaction to as minimal as possible. My guess would be on the vast majority of university business, the Brethren have given a general guideline and the unverisity leadership use this where appropriate and treat the rest as a typical university would.

BYW, this reminds me of a young lady who walked into our church bookstore and asked in a more or less rhetorical way if everything here was church approved...I corrected her immediately.

I think the church leadership roles would have to double in size if they did all that people seem to expect them to be doing. Micromanaging is not generally encouraged from what I've seen in the Church.

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bob Oliverio]

Who? Me? Yes, I'm that guy.

But if you're talking about John Dehlin, no, he's not that guy. I don't think that the changes had much if anything to do with him.

John Dehlin didn't. And Church leadership had nothing to do with those changes.

Them's the facts.

My apologies.  I did not mean to take from your significance in this topic.  I merely googled "Dehlin Maxwell Institute" and pages to eternity came up discussing his influence, role  and affect in what happened.  And I agree you should also get equal billing based on the results provided by the search.  Still, it's hard to argue (outside of isolation and/or insulation) that he had no role, influence, impact, participation, or contribution to the changes (good or bad) being discussed here and everywhere else on the web given the volume of information to the contrary.  Just being factual.  I got no dog in this hunt.  Hell, I never even heard of the Maxwell Institute before all this hubbub!!  

[Brian 2.0]

BYW, this reminds me of a young lady who walked into our church bookstore and asked in a more or less rhetorical way if everything here was church approved...I corrected her immediately.

haha. I love that.

But I guess it's better that she asked the question... rather than just assuming that everything in Deseret Book is basically doctrine approved by the Prophet.

[Calm]

Just being factual.

Perhaps in your report of google hits, not particularly in your interpretation of it.

I pulled up over 2 million hits with "Gore invented internet"....doesn't mean Gore actually had any of a role in the actual creation of the internet no matter the hit count, that he helped promote it and encouraged its growth is something quite different than what is intended by the search phrase.

A good time to provide a link to an article about this that I had missed when it first came out: http://www.johnadams...as-two-letters/

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

haha. I love that.

But I guess it's better that she asked the question... rather than just assuming that everything in Deseret Book is basically doctrine approved by the Prophet.

Well, from the way she said it, it was obvious she had assumed it but I am glad she asked for confirmation more or less so I could correct her misunderstanding.

[ERayR]

My apologies. I did not mean to take from your significance in this topic. I merely googled "Dehlin Maxwell Institute" and pages to eternity came up discussing his influence, role and affect in what happened. And I agree you should also get equal billing based on the results provided by the search. Still, it's hard to argue (outside of isolation and/or insulation) that he had no role, influence, impact, participation, or contribution to the changes (good or bad) being discussed here and everywhere else on the web given the volume of information to the contrary. Just being factual. I got no dog in this hunt. Hell, I never even heard of the Maxwell Institute before all this hubbub!!

I don't think Dr. Peterson is worried in the slightest about getting "equal billing". I think your innuendo is entirely uncalled for.

Edited February 2, 2013 by ERayR

[Singularity]

I would suspect there is some interaction but even in a typical university trustees aren't running about making decisions constantly and I think with all the rest of the church work that the BYU trustees are involved in, they tend to keep interaction to as minimal as possible. My guess would be on the vast majority of university business, the Brethren have given a general guideline and the unverisity leadership use this where appropriate and treat the rest as a typical university would.

BYW, this reminds me of a young lady who walked into our church bookstore and asked in a more or less rhetorical way if everything here was church approved...I corrected her immediately.

I think the church leadership roles would have to double in size if they did all that people seem to expect them to be doing. Micromanaging is not generally encouraged from what I've seen in the Church.

Thanks for answering my question. I admit to being a little confused on this whole Dehlin/Maxwell Institute thing. I thought that Dr. Peterson (or maybe it was Prof. Midgley) had said that John Dehlin had contacted General Authorities to get the so-called alleged "hit piece" censored and that he succeeded after one of the Brethren intervened to quash publication. Now, Dr. Peterson says no Church leaders were involved, so I am just trying to sort it all out.

[Bob Oliverio]

I don't think Dr. Peterson is worried in the slightest about getting "equal billing". I think your innuendo is entirely uncalled for.

I was merely trying to be respectful of his assertions:

"Who? Me? Yes, I'm that guy."

I did not want to offend his significance or role in the discussion that he obviously wanted to make.

Perhaps you should take this up with him.

We are not going to put up with snide derails in this thread.

[Calm]

Dehlin claimed to have succeeded after one of the Brethren intervened, this does NOT mean that one of the Brethren actually intervened.

There is also the claim that he was the cause of Dan being fired from MI, there is no actual evidence of this. It appears in my view to be the result of a long standing difference of opinion between Dan and Dr. Bradford on how things should be done at MI, if Dehlin's article hadn't appeared on Bradford's desk in Marchish...not sure when he actually first saw it (though he didn't read it...at least not then), Dan's dismissal in June likely would have happened anyway from what I've been told.

Can't believe I left out the all important "NOT"

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Singularity]

Dehlin claimed to have succeeded after one of the Brethren intervened, this does mean that one of the Brethren actually intervened.

There is also the claim that he was the cause of Dan being fired from MI, there is no actual evidence of this. It appears in my view to be the result of a long standing difference of opinion between Dan and Dr. Bradford on how things should be done at MI, if Dehlin's article hadn't appeared on Bradford's desk in Marchish...not sure when he actually first saw it (though he didn't read it...at least not then), Dan's dismissal in June likely would have happened anyway from what I've been told.

Oh, I understand now. Thanks. Dr. Peterson is saying no Church leader was involved in the shakeup at MI, but not necessarily that no Church leader was involved in the spiking of the article about Dehlin.

[Calm]

Oh, I understand now. Thanks. Dr. Peterson is saying no Church leader was involved in the shakeup at MI, but not necessarily that no Church leader was involved in the spiking of the article about Dehlin.

Sorry, I left out the all important "NOT".

To the best of my knowledge, the involvment of a GA in the 'spiking' was possibly at most that an email was directed to him by Dehlin and he acknowledged it. Only school officials (not trustees) were the ones involved in either the actual 'spike' or the MI dismissals. It is possible that a GA wrote to the school official involved (see Midgley's account about the official's involvment), but my memory say no one has confirmed this happened and there has been some confirmation that it didn't (Dan's comments if I have understood him rightly).

Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

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.

.

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.

Will

1: I am hardly a long term established critic of the LDS Church. I am a member, still in relatively good standing, hold a TR and a callling. Sorry to burst your paranoid little bubble.

2: Yes your behavior as a self annointed defender is some of the most despicable I have seen. You have annointed yourself on some holy mission of rooting out members YOU think are marginal. That is not your place. I think such behavior is despicable and evil. Fortunatly it is not just your church and I think your ilk are few and far between.

3: The gospel of Jesus Christ welcomes the repentent soul. You have viewed Dehlin as a rabid and dangerous apostate and have been drooling to do him damage. Now that the man seems to be returning to the fold rather than rejoice in the return of the prodigal son you continue to attack and seek to cast doubt on him. The man cannot win. Is this how you treat way ward members of your ward?

Yes I do think such behavior is despicable. You may have your denziens here who applaud your sad cynical views. Me, I am happy for John and welcome him back with open arms. But hell what do I know. I am just a horrid little NOMish middle wayer. I am sure you would be happy to see my fanny out the door. Sorry to disappoint. I plan on being around for a long long time.

This is a hot button thread and flamers are being removed.

[Teancum]

One thing is clear. John got a too big for his britches. He saw himself as a god to his following and an extremely important person in his movement and in the church---a mover and a shaker. But it did bite him in the end eventually as he so admits. There is a lesson here: keep one's feet on the ground and keep the ego small.

Gee and I think in his recent podcast he essentially confessed all what you say for all to hear who wish. I think he was awfully courageous (and maybe a bit foolish) to talk so openly about his pride, arrogance, liking the attention, etc, etc. So yea as you note he admits it. So be happy for him Whyme. He is moer in the Church than you are. When you coming back?

[TAO]

Teancum, as far as I know, whyme is very much in the church.

Edited February 2, 2013 by TAO

[Duncan]

kudos to everyone who is able to keep with all this!

[Daniel Peterson]

I was merely trying to be respectful of his assertions:

"Who? Me? Yes, I'm that guy."

I did not want to offend his significance or role in the discussion that he obviously wanted to make.

Perhaps you should take this up with him.

LOL. Insult duly noted.

I don't care about preserving some "significance" of mine. I care about accuracy.

[Daniel Peterson]

Peterson is saying no Church leader was involved in the shakeup at MI,

That's correct.

but not necessarily that no Church leader was involved in the spiking of the article about Dehlin.

That's also correct. Some General Authority (I'm not precisely sure which one) said something (I'm not exactly sure what) to President Samuelson of BYU, which led President Samuelson to talk to Gerald Bradford (who lives in his ward) and to send Bradford a memo, which led Bradford to ask me not to run the piece on Dehlin, and I instantly complied. No General Authority had read the article at that point, and President Samuelson and Gerald Bradford have never read the article.