John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Daniel Peterson]

There is also the claim that he was the cause of Dan being fired from MI, there is no actual evidence of this.

And I don't believe it to be even remotely true.

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,

That does, indeed, seem to be the basic cause.

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.

I think that's true.

[Louis Midgley]

I am not quite willing, as is Professor Peterson, to grant that one of the Brethren actually said anything to Cecil Samuelson about Greg Smith's paper. It could have happened, since anything is possible. But the memo that I read and copied the operative language from did not explicitly say that an Apostle had contacted him. And, as I have previously indicated, one crucial passage reads as if Samuelson was guessing at what the Brethren--his term--wanted done.

[Daniel Peterson]

That might, Professor Midgley, be consistent with what I'm saying.

It's like the game where you start whispering a fairly complex sentence around a circle. By the end of the process, it's thoroughly garbled.

I can well imagine that some General Authority said something, and that that "something" became more negative and more precise with each stage of its transmission, from General Authority to Samuelson, from Samuelson to Bradford, and from Bradford to me. (Bradford was already, it's now clear, negatively inclined toward me and all my works, so it would scarcely be mysterious or surprising if whatever that something was became more negative in his version of it than it originally was.)

[Louis Midgley]

Professor Peterson has had to endure all the rubbish said about him by his Malevolent Stalker and others. Being fired by email while on an important university assignment and having to carry on as if nothing had happened for weeks must have been very painful. I must say that I have suffered having my wife in tears over the whole mess. And also having Jerry Bradford's firing of my friend end both my relationship with the Maxwell Institute. It marked the abrupt end of twenty-three years of my ardent volunteer effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute. It also seems to have ended my friendship with Jerry Bradford, who I have known and considered a very close friend for over fifty years. He was once a student of mine and we have remained in constant contact for all those years, until one day when he would not take a phone call. In addition, my relationship with the Maxwell Institute also ended while I was out of the country (on holiday in Russia).

Before Dan was fired, I had Jerry Bradford read a draft of my essay entitled "Defending the King and the Kingdom." He sent me a note indicating that he liked it and had a few suggestions. He would, he said, get back to me when the Dehlin business had blown over. Other than a letter in which he said he hoped our friendship would survive the mess, I have not heard a word from him. I did, however, phone him and we had a nive coversation. I was able to indicate some of the deep regret I have for the abrupt ending of what was previously a wonderful experience.

I think that removing Professor Peterson was in the works for some time prior to his being fired. I agree that it was profoundly personal, but it also seems to have been ideological. Morgan Davis made that very clear to me on 29 March. He indicated that essentially nothing I had publshed had any value. From his perspective, it only had the appearance of scholarship, but not the substance. The problem for him is that we did not facus merely on the beauties of the Book of Mormon, but set out objections to the critics of our faith. That, he told me in much detail, was not what those he considers real scholars will do. This seemed to me to be an ideological difference that I doubt that Morgan had invented. I assume that he was in his way of spelling out for me the new direction that it has been decided that the Maxwell Institute will now take. None of this has come down from the Brethren. This has all been manufactured in Provo.

[mfbukowski]

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

Actually my understanding, amazingly, is that she is not a member. I have seen posts on the other thread indicating that unless I am mistaken which is of course possible.

[Daniel Peterson]

Precisely.

There was a clear personal element to my dismissal -- I've been learning more and more about that, and it's astonished me to discover how completely oblivious I was to it (I imagined -- quite incorrectly, as it happens -- that Gerald Bradford and I were, if not close friends, on pretty good terms) -- but that was mixed in inextricably with what turns out to have been a profound and irreconcilable ideological disagreement.

It could have been discussed, but it wasn't. Instead, the thing happened by email.

I'm still amazed by it.

And I'm not the only person, nor even (by far) the most important person, who was surprised.

[Louis Midgley]

In my conversation with Dehlin on 29 March 2012, I asked him if he really wanted the Brethren to look into the paper he was calling a 'hit piece," but without read it or even knowing who had written it. He replied that the Brethren had already looked into the matter. That was clearly not true back then, since none of the Brethren had at that time read the paper. By making a stink, Dehlin made it certain that some of the Brethren would eventually have a look at Greg Smith's paper. . Copies of at least two drafts were already available to the brethren, and hence to any of the Brethren who cared to have a look. Dehlin was far too confident in his ability to manipulate things. The wheels of justice grind slowly.

Is there, I wonder, evidence in his latest podcast where he talks about his relationship with the Brethren having dried up. Some who have listened to that Podcast can answer this question. If the answer is affirmative, then I was right in warning Dehlin not to force the Brethren to actually read Greg Smith's paper.

[why me]

John's been going all sorts of different ways in his beliefs during the years he's done the podcast and he's been pretty vocal about that. So hopefully the article doesn't spell him out to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing" by simply showing that in 2006 he said "I believe in God" then in 2011 he said "I don't believe in God"

I think that we need to consider the influence that John had among a certain type of mormons. When one begins to follow John and not the church, one can end up in his waves of belief and doubt. Also, for those who were with him during the first podcasts and then, were swept into the sea change when he changed his beliefs may have found themselves out to sea too. And now these people may just be reconsidering staying out to sea or coming back to land. But can they be considered victims? And would they consider themselves to be so?

John himself would admit that he had influence over people through his podcasts, chapters and conferences.

Likewise for people who left the church because of Compton or any other member or exmember who wrote a book critical of the church and this book influenced people to leave. The people who left should understand that human beings often change their minds..and can return to full activity. Not good to follow any mere mortal without that understanding.

Edited February 2, 2013 by why me

[why me]

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?

The problem is that many of us on this forum knew that john was getting too big for his britches. He only confirmed what many of us knew. And if you would go back and see some of the threads about John on this forum you will see this to be so. I think that it is great that he is back. But he has also caused a lot of damage when it comes to faith and the church. He had influence among his followers. And for that he had responsibility. I remember calling his followers Dehlinites on this forum. Now I have no idea what will happen to the Dehlinites. Have they been left out in the cold?

Also, on his podcast he mentions that a general authority told him that if the church were a tent, he would want members to be in that tent...it would not matter if they are sitting in the front of the tent or in the back of the tent as long as they are in the tent.

I am somewhere in the tent.

Edited February 2, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

The problem is that many of us on this forum knew that john was getting too big for his britches. He only confirmed what many of us knew. And if you would go back and see some of the threads about John on this forum you will see this to be so. I think that it is great that he is back. But he has also caused a lot of damage when it comes to faith and the church. He had influence among his followers. And for that he had responsibility. I remember calling his followers Dehlinites on this forum. Now I have no idea what will happen to the Dehlinites. Have they been left out in the cold?

Also, on his podcast he mentions that a general authority told him that if the church were a tent, he would want members to be in that tent...it would not matter if they are sitting in the front of the tent or in the back of the tent as long as they are in the tent.

I am somewhere in the tent.

I think the Dehlinites as you put it have started MS Chapters. So they would have people running them. Life goes on. ETA: I have to admit that quite possibly JD's Mormon Stories could have led some out of the church, I'll give you that but I would challenge anyone to say he didn't help some weather the storm long enough to stay and not leave the church. It's a double edged sword. Edited February 2, 2013 by Tacenda

[why me]

I think the Dehlinites as you put it have started MS Chapters. So they would have people running them. Life goes on.

Since MormonStories podcasts are still in operation they may wish to change their name or maybe John will make them change their name. But without John, it may be difficult to continue. I expect they will fold and drift apart. And that was my point.

[Tacenda]

Since MormonStories podcasts are still in operation they may wish to change their name or maybe John will make them change their name. But without John, it may be difficult to continue. I expect they will fold and drift apart. And that was my point.

I think John will continue the podcasts. He also has a hand in the Mormon Matters podcasts.

[Tacenda]

Listening to the rest of the podcasts, they finally work. Kudos to John's Stake President. He has John tell him what to read or what podcast to listen to. He wanted to get where John was coming from. What a Christlike man. Incredible!

[ERayR]

I am somewhere in the tent.

I hope I get to shake your hand sometime. I do not always agree with you but I do respect you.

[Kevin Christensen]

Grant Palmer is mentioned often, are there stark things he has stated in books or podcasts that contradict the truth. Is there anything he has said about the church that is absolutely false? If so, would anyone care to provide references?

Grant Palmer is mentioned often, are there stark things he has stated in books or podcasts that contradict the truth. Is there anything he has said about the church that is absolutely false? If so, would anyone care to provide references?

For detailed responses to his book:

Steven Harper

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=15&num=2&id=512

Mark Ashurst McGee

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=15&num=2&id=513

Davis Bitton

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=15&num=2&id=511

James Allen

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=16&num=1&id=533

Lou Midgley

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=15&num=2&id=514

And a statement from the historians at the Joseph Fielding Smith INsitute for Latter-day Saint History

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=15&num=2&id=510

I read the book myself and reviewed it at Amazon. I found that every page annoyed me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT (Just visiting)

[Tacenda]

For detailed responses to his book:

Steven Harper

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=512

Mark Ashurst McGee

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=513

Davis Bitton

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=511

James Allen

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=533

Lou Midgley

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=514

And a statement from the historians at the Joseph Fielding Smith INsitute for Latter-day Saint History

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=510

I read the book myself and reviewed it at Amazon. I found that every page annoyed me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT (Just visiting)

Thanks for these, but so much to read and so little time. I scanned through all of them. Could you possibly narrow down to what Palmer flat out lies about concerning his case against?

Have fun in West Jordan!

ETA: Not that it was you who said he lied.

Start a thread about Palmer if you want to discuss his book.

[why me]

Thanks for these, but so much to read and so little time. I scanned through all of them. Could you possibly narrow down to what Palmer flat out lies about concerning his case against?

Have fun in West Jordan!

ETA: Not that it was you who said he lied.

The problem with palmer or with anyone who writes a critical historical account of the lds church is the bias. And the interpretation and a willingness of others to believe the interpretation. It is not necessarily lying but interpreting that becomes the problem in his writings.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks for these, but so much to read and so little time. I scanned through all of them. Could you possibly narrow down to what Palmer flat out lies about concerning his case against?

Have fun in West Jordan!

ETA: Not that it was you who said he lied.

Thanks for these, but so much to read and so little time. I scanned through all of them. Could you possibly narrow down to what Palmer flat out lies about concerning his case against?

Have fun in West Jordan!

ETA: Not that it was you who said he lied.

I don't doubt that Palmer believes what he says. The issue for me is whether what he says is correct, and whether he demonstrates a broad perspective and knowledge of relevant sources. But, for example, if he claims that he represents a consensus of LDS scholars, and the historians at the Institute feel the need to say he does not speak for us, then that tells me something about the thought world that Palmer lives in. If he uncritically quotes that Roberts Study from 1923 and does not so much as mention the existence of a 1985 paper called "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions", then I have to wonder why? Is he ignorant of it? If he disagrees with Welch's response, why no defense of Roberts' arguments against Welch? If he can quote the 1832 history when arguing against the First Vision, why doesn't he quote the 1832 history when making his claims that the notion of Angelic priesthood restoration happened in 1834? When discussing King Benjamin's discourse, why no mention of the single most important volume on the topic? Particularly when he claims to represent a consensus view. Does he even know what the most important scholars have written? It's not a matter of whether Palmer is sincere or nice, or means well, or whatever. Does he actually have the competence he claims? Are his views as representative as he claims? Does he actually know what he is talking about?

I think not. The best way to know is to read his book and the responses. That way, you know for yourself. That is what I did. And I had read quite a lot before hand. For that matter, I had published more than he had done, and do not see myself as representing a consensus of historians, or an insider. Just an interested amateur. So Palmer was not my first introduction to the topics, save for his claims about the Golden Pot, which are highly dubious.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT

Edited February 3, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

The problem with palmer or with anyone who writes a critical historical account of the lds church is the bias. And the interpretation and a willingness of others to believe the interpretation. It is not necessarily lying but interpreting that becomes the problem in his writings.

Could you refer me to some non apologetic books concerning the issues he brings up in the book about early mormonism? I take Grant Palmer as being an honest man. And maybe some apologetic people not so honest. For instance saying horses in the BoM might be tapirs. That turns me off.

If you continue derailing this thread you will be removed. Start a new thread.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I don't doubt that Palmer believes what he says. The issue for me is whether what he says is correct, and whether he demonstrates a broad perspective and knowledge of relevant sources. But, for example, if he claims that he represents a consensus of LDS scholars, and the historians at the Institute feel the need to say he does not speak for us, then that tells me something about the thought world that Palmer lives in. If he uncritically quotes that Roberts Study from 1923 and does not so much as mention the existence of a 1985 paper called "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions", then I have to wonder why? Is he ignorant of it? If he disagrees with Welch's response, why no defense of Roberts' arguments against Welch? If he can quote the 1832 history when arguing against the First Vision, why doesn't he quote the 1832 history when making his claims that the notion of Angelic priesthood restoration happened in 1834? When discussing King Benjamin's discourse, why no mention of the single most important volume on the topic? Particularly when he claims to represent a consensus view. Does he even know what the most important scholars have written? It's not a matter of whether Palmer is sincere or nice, or means well, or whatever. Does he actually have the competence he claims? Are his views as representative as he claims? Does he actually know what he is talking about?

I think not. The best way to know is to read his book and the responses. That way, you know for yourself. That is what I did. And I had read quite a lot before hand. For that matter, I had published more than he had done, and do not see myself as representing a consensus of historians, or an insider. Just an interested amateur. So Palmer was not my first introduction to the topics, save for his claims about the Golden Pot, which are highly dubious.

Kevin, I have always liked what you say, careful, thoughtful, and interesting ideas. However, here we need to understand that your exact argument can be flipped on its head, and is so(!) when it comes to Mormon scholarship and Mormon leaders' teachings as well. It should not surprise us that this same approach to Mormonism from former Mormons, angry Mormons and non-Mormons is in their writings. This illustrates the issues about religion that has more or less simply turned me off in the last few years. No one has the actual correct stance. This same criticism has been and can be used about everything every one of us Mormons has ever written. I'm not criticizing ya, just noting this.

[Tacenda]

I don't doubt that Palmer believes what he says. The issue for me is whether what he says is correct, and whether he demonstrates a broad perspective and knowledge of relevant sources. But, for example, if he claims that he represents a consensus of LDS scholars, and the historians at the Institute feel the need to say he does not speak for us, then that tells me something about the thought world that Palmer lives in. If he uncritically quotes that Roberts Study from 1923 and does not so much as mention the existence of a 1985 paper called "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions", then I have to wonder why? Is he ignorant of it? If he disagrees with Welch's response, why no defense of Roberts' arguments against Welch? If he can quote the 1832 history when arguing against the First Vision, why doesn't he quote the 1832 history when making his claims that the notion of Angelic priesthood restoration happened in 1834? When discussing King Benjamin's discourse, why no mention of the single most important volume on the topic? Particularly when he claims to represent a consensus view. Does he even know what the most important scholars have written? It's not a matter of whether Palmer is sincere or nice, or means well, or whatever. Does he actually have the competence he claims? Are his views as representative as he claims? Does he actually know what he is talking about?

I think not. The best way to know is to read his book and the responses. That way, you know for yourself. That is what I did. And I had read quite a lot before hand. For that matter, I had published more than he had done, and do not see myself as representing a consensus of historians, or an insider. Just an interested amateur. So Palmer was not my first introduction to the topics, save for his claims about the Golden Pot, which are highly dubious.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT

Gotcha, I'll move on now so as not to derail and Why Me, if you're reading, I now have some reading material that may or may not be apologetic from Kevin. Google here I come.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I have always liked what you say, careful, thoughtful, and interesting ideas. However, here we need to understand that your exact argument can be flipped on its head, and is so(!) when it comes to Mormon scholarship and Mormon leaders' teachings as well. It should not surprise us that this same approach to Mormonism from former Mormons, angry Mormons and non-Mormons is in their writings. This illustrates the issues about religion that has more or less simply turned me off in the last few years. No one has the actual correct stance. This same criticism has been and can be used about everything every one of us Mormons has ever written. I'm not criticizing ya, just noting this.

Kevin, I have always liked what you say, careful, thoughtful, and interesting ideas. However, here we need to understand that your exact argument can be flipped on its head, and is so(!) when it comes to Mormon scholarship and Mormon leaders' teachings as well. It should not surprise us that this same approach to Mormonism from former Mormons, angry Mormons and non-Mormons is in their writings. This illustrates the issues about religion that has more or less simply turned me off in the last few years. No one has the actual correct stance. This same criticism has been and can be used about everything every one of us Mormons has ever written. I'm not criticizing ya, just noting this.

The key, I think, is the yearning for an actual correct stance, Perfect Authority, an utterly reliable Big Book of What to Think, rather than having to continually repent, to have to constantly learn, to have to that God was just speaking hypothetically when he says of LDS leaders, "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." It's what Alma 32 describes as the urge to "know" with finality and surety, rather than what he describes as settling for

"cause to believe" that falls short of "perfect knowledge." It's a matter, I think, of being involved in a process of continual growth, as Nibley put it, "continual repentence." I quite like the idea. It fits nicely with the ninth stage of the Perry Scheme. The thing is, if I look at what I have and decide that only the imperfection matters, I'm going to be perpetually disillusioned with everything, tending to being cynical and bitter. If, on the other hand, I am focused on the continual unfolding of understanding, enlightening of my mind, expanded understanding, success in key experiments rather than perfect knowledge everywhere, then I will tend to be optimistic and hopeful, having joy in the process and anticipating a bright future.

I still think you should read Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

The thing that Kuhn says about paradigm choice is that is involves "which paradigm is better? Which problems are most significant to have solved?" The LDS paradigm of faith is not of a closed system, perfect knowlege, but something that is explicitly an open-ended process, just as self-correcting as science. So things like Perry's Ensign article, while annoying, don't park in my field of vision, obscurring everything else. I like what Nibley, and Hamblin and Jefferies have said. I'm not in an all-or-nothing world, in which one size and attitude can or should fit all. It's not a perfect garden, but a complex world with all sorts of types. Read the Wikipedia article on John Boyd, and think about the power to the edge concept as it applies in the LDS culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Off to Logan for a Funeral this afternoon.

[why me]

Could you refer me to some non apologetic books concerning the issues he brings up in the book about early mormonism? I take Grant Palmer as being an honest man. And maybe some apologetic people not so honest. For instance saying horses in the BoM might be tapirs. That turns me off.

If you continue derailing this thread you will be removed. Start a new thread.

Tacenda, the connection with Palmer and Compton is that John was influenced by these authors. And that was unfortunate because no member should be influenced by mere mortals writing history of the lds church. History is full of interpretation and as Bushman has proved,, interpretation can also be faith promoting.

One should not negate their spiritual experiences in the lds church because of a book written by a man or woman.

[Daniel Peterson]

No one has the actual correct stance.

Except you, apparently. Your stance that no one has the actual correct stance is correct. Right?

***

I take Grant Palmer as being an honest man.

Why?

And maybe some apologetic people not so honest.

Why?

For instance saying horses in the BoM might be tapirs. That turns me off.

The fact that some people make a linguistic/sociological argument that "turns you off" demonstrates that they're dishonest?

I wonder, by the way, if you can accurately restate the argument. I routinely find that those who mock it can't actually summarize it accurately.

(You might want to respond to me, if you choose to respond, elsewhere on this board.)

[phaedrus ut]

When I heard about the confrontation between Dehlin and Midgley all I could think was here we go again. With the number of these stories adding up it's got to be far from coincidence by now.

Is there a certain point when you should stop apologizing for someones antics and poor behavior and actually speak out against it?

Phaedrus

Board nannies will be removed from the thread. Consider yourself warned.

Sorry for sounding dense but I have no idea what "Board Nannies" are. Can someone help me?

Phaedrus