John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Louis Midgley]

I agree that speculation is not helpful. Dan Peterson's response to Why Me's assertion that "the controversy over John [Dehlin] and the Maxwell Institute can now be seen more clearly" should be taken seriously. Dan wrote: "Don't assume that John Dehlin's version of that is accurate."

Since I have been a minor figure in that controversy, I will now provide a bit of information on something about which I believe Dehlin has been opining and which he has not told the truth. Those in thrall to Dehlin's recent remarks should have my version of a conversation that he claims led him to do several things. If he is, as I very much hope is the case, coming back to faith in Jesus Christ, then he should be concerned not to keep alive false claims about others.

I posted the following item, see below, to the FAIR list at 10:30pm on 29 March 2012, which was the evening of the exchange between John Dehlin and Scott Gordon at Utah Valley University. This was slightly longer than four hours after my wife and I had departed UVU and had dinner and returned to our home. The following is an exact copy of my report of what went on at UVU in the afternoon of 29 March 2012 except that I have made a few tiny corrections and additions which are shown in brackets. Something I said confused Dehlin, and I did not correct or restate my point. I made it appear that I believed that reading Grant Palmer’s book caused him to go missing. Clearly he had what he calls his “faith crisis” long before that. I didn’t try to correct what I had said to him about Palmer. I was aware that he had gone missing much earlier than 2002, when he fell in love with Palmer’s book. However, I did not fully realize is that he had essentially gone missing in 1993 while he was a senior at BYU finishing up his degree in Political Science. He was one of my students and is known by many of my colleagues. He recently interviewed Ralph Hancock, for whom he was a teaching assistant.

Dehlin had, it seems, gotten involved with a few cynical returned missionaries. Unlike Dehlin, they seem to have been readers and hence could feed him what seemed to him intellectually stimulating gossip about LDS history and so forth. This unhinged his naive faith. This is what he tried to feed to his young high school students when his Bishop called him to teach early morning seminary when he eventually worked at Microsoft. That “calling” seems to have been his first effort to manipulate an LDS audience. When he ceased employment at Microsoft and moved to Logan, he began his current up and down career helping troubled Saints make what he describes as an informed decision on whether to stay in the Church.

I have not listened to his most recent interview. I have only listened to three of his podcasts. One of these is the one the contents of which I am told he has had to explain to his Stake President. This is the interview by the Larsons who are a husband and wife team that operate, if I remember correctly, something called “Mormon Expressions.” I also know that the brethren were very much aware of this podcast. I assume that this explains why his Stake President had a transcript of that podcast. Given the internet, there is simply no way to hide things, and especially if one wants and audience and wants to make a living opining in public.

The “very brief” note that I mention below, is included In my essay entitled “Defending the King and His Kingdom,” which was in a somewhat different form was intended to be the “Editor’s Introduction” to the cancelled issue of the Review, I included, still in a paraphrases form, the “very brief” note I mentioned to Dehlin on 29 March 2012. I did not cite or quote Dehlin in my essay. But anyone who has listened to the Larsons interview with Dehlin, I have done, or read it, as I am told Dehlin’s Stake President has done, will be familiar with Dehlin’s bold statements of radical unfaith, and not merely getting the details of our history accurately and fully sorted. I have from 1980 to the present been anxious for this to take place, and have tried my best to contribute to it.

These are my notes on my exchange with Dehlin on the afternoon of 29 March 2012:

[After one sentence introducing my remarks to the FAIR volunteers, I indicated that] I asked Dehlin if I would telling the truth about him and also something important for the Saints to know, if I were to publish--I emphasized that word--a very brief little note in which I indicate that I have heard him say in a public venue that anyone can listen to that he does not believe in God, does not think that there was a Jesus, and that the atonement is rubbish. I had indicated that I would be paraphrasing but, if I published such a note, I would quote his very words in context. He called me a liar. He had not said those things. Where was I wrong? I again said that I am paraphrasing. He called me a liar a second time. On what matter? He objected to the word rubbish [as an adequate description of his flat rejection of the atonement]. I emphasized that I was paraphrasing, but I would quote his exact words, if I were to publish such a note. He called me a liar again, and he then said that he had merely indicated that the atonement was hard to understand. In two or three sentences I explained what i taught in our scriptures. What is hard to understand in that, I asked. Well, I am a liar. I then told him that he is dissembling. [This was the word I used. It is a nice way of saying that he lacks probity.] He had sneered at the atonement. I easily could quote his very words. He called a liar again. I then explained that his sneering at the atonement seems to follow rather easily from the fact that he does not even think there was a Jesus, and hence he certainly could not have been God whose victory over an unjust death by demonic powers made possible our deliverance from the evils of this world on condition of our obeying his commandments. He seemed stunned. Finding that the atonement is silly, I explained, seems to follow from his dismissing [both Jesus as an historical person and also] God. And I told him I think that someone who wants the Brethren to tell the truth ought not to shy away from having the ground for his endeavors open to public inspection. After all, with his reputation for being open and honest, would not knowing his opinions on these matters help people leave [or stay in] the Church?

I then said that I noted that he boasts that he does not read. I told him that it shows in his podcasts. And that, if he bothered to read what those who he denigrates as apologists have written, he would realize that the Book of Mormon is on solid ground, and the Book of Abraham is not nonsense. It simply cannot be the case that people leave the Church because of what they learn from FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

I told him that when he had his crisis of faith in 1992[3] that a phone call to me or any of those he studied with in my department [that is, the Political Science Department at BYU] could have salvaged his faith. Then I said that giving up on the atonement and God because of what one finds in Grant Palmer's book is absurd. The reason is that we have demonstrated in detail that every single argument in that book is wrong. I reminded him that we (once had) had a long correspondence and that he has admitted that every argument in Palmer's book is wrong, but that the book as a whole gets it sorted out. I described this as absurd. But, since he wants to pull the Church from his founding historical narrative, I insisted, he simply will not even read the five reviews of that book and confront arguments and evidence. So something else generated his apostasy other than scholarship and evidence. What was it? That he had not [even once] heard about seer stones? But they are clearly what were called Interpreters in the Book of Mormon. He did not have to hear about th[em] in primary. He was an A student at BYU, I reminded him, and could read the Book of Mormon to own his faith.

I asked Dehlin if there might be something that happened on his mission that led he to look for vengeance. Was he, I asked, involved in that death on that lake in Guatemala? No, but his companion died in that accident. I could not follow his explanation, except that he was fighting to put a stop to underage baptisms, and so forth. He then fingered some Assistant to the President as the one responsible for problems among the missionaries. But why then go after his Mission President? Those who know him [the Mission President] do not believe he was the source for the problem. And the Brethren who looked into the matter did not see him as the problem. I then added that I have no interest in investigating what when on in his mission, but that he should ask himself what went on in his heart and mind that eventually led him into a naive atheism.

I indicated that I do not think that he wants any of the Brethren to look into these matters. He said they already have and have sided with him. I then said that I doubt that his way of positioning himself could [withstand a] full analysis. Does he really want the Brethren or others to know where he really stands on various crucial issues? While this conversation was going on there was no sneering, as there was when he glanced at Scott [during his presentation]. What I saw, instead, was anxiety and even panic in one who is otherwise really smooth and confident, and filled with Mormon nice. Greg will understand.

A couple was standing behind me and they introduced themselves immediately after I stepped down from the stand. The husband had been a student of mine 40 years ago. I did not, of course, recognize him. He said, with his wife approving, that he held me in high esteem. I am usually uncomfortable with that kind of talk. But he could remember details from the course he had with me. He is an avid follower to the MI. He loves Dan Peterson's Mormon Scholars Testify. His last child, a boy, is currently on a mission. He sends him a link to MST each week. He said that he would send my contribution to his son. He then said that he was delighted to witness my encounter with Dehlin. The reason was that it was easy to read the body language, and he felt that Dehlin was obviously troubled by what I was telling him. I explained that I was merely defending the founding narrative upon which our faith rests from Dehlin's sophistic attack.

There was another fellow there who reminded me that he had studied the Federalist from me. And that I had, from time to time warned my students about the kind of thing Dehlin has set out in his talk. And that I had shown a fondness for New Zealand and the Maori. This also pleased me and my wife. We explained that we had served a mission there after I retired and that she was able to experience the things I have been raving about all this time.

Boyd Peterson, who organized the conference, said that he had taken a lot of heat for inviting Dehlin, but also has people complain long and loud about having Scott Gordon on the program. One angry evangelical lady wanted to know if he was a Latter-day Saint. Boyd said that he was. Did he know about polygamy, or MMM, and so forth? Boyd said that he responded affirmative to more than 25 questions. How can one know about these things and be a believer. Boyd explained that much of what she mentioned were good reasons for being a believer. He tried to explain in a nice way why this was the case, and she then gave up.

[Tacenda]

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?

Edited January 31, 2013 by Tacenda

[Mayan Elephant]

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?

there are some complications with some of his writings, yes. the gold pot thing for example, that didn't work out too well for his book, in my opinion. other than that, his writings have been scrutinized ad nauseum by members of this forum and others.

reading louis midgley's piece above, reminded me of times i read his writings in the past. nothing i ever read had more of an impact on my decisions of the church than what midgley wrote. i would stay very late in the night reading his works. after reading them, i knew i had to leave the church.

[go_utes01]

there are some complications with some of his writings, yes. the gold pot thing for example, that didn't work out too well for his book, in my opinion. other than that, his writings have been scrutinized ad nauseum by members of this forum and others.

reading louis midgley's piece above, reminded me of times i read his writings in the past. nothing i ever read had more of an impact on my decisions of the church than what midgley wrote. i would stay very late in the night reading his works. after reading them, i knew i had to leave the church.

You knew you had to leave the Church because of the writings of one man? Seems like a weird conclusion to jump to. I am just curious - not trying to criticize or condemn. I hope you are happy with wherever your life journey has taken you.

[Senator]

It seems that the spirit of the "Dehlin hit piece" is clawing at the walls of its tomb. Strangely moreso now that he is seeking some sort of "turning from", then when he was anxiously engaged in his apostacy.

[Mayan Elephant]

You knew you had to leave the Church because of the writings of one man? Seems like a weird conclusion to jump to. I am just curious - not trying to criticize or condemn. I hope you are happy with wherever your life journey has taken you.

read it a little closer. there were lots of reasons i made the decisions i made. lots of experiences and obviously many circumstances. but of the stuff i was reading, midgley's writings were the most profoundly impactful. they alone are not the reasons i left, but certainly in terms of research and studying and looking for answers and clues, midgley still stands out to me.

[why me]

I agree that speculation is not helpful. Dan Peterson's response to Why Me's assertion that "the controversy over John [Dehlin] and the Maxwell Institute can now be seen more clearly" should be taken seriously. Dan wrote: "Don't assume that John Dehlin's version of that is accurate."

I have been rather critical of John for quite some time and certainly defended Dan and the others over the controversy. However, I was not referring to the controversy. I was more or less referring to why the piece about john was not published. And if true, why it would be squashed. If John was contemplating coming back to the faith and he was speaking to GAs about his concerns, I can understand why there would be interference from them about the article about john.

What is important is that john is back in the fold and it was because of his meetings with the leaders that prompted his decision. And as he claimed to feel the spirit when speaking with the GA, I can undestand why he would return. And why he may have wished to have the piece squashed.

That being said, John has much work in front of him. He has led many out of the church and yes, in the beginning he helped people stay in the church. But he has much work to do because of those who left because of him. I would recommend some good ol' firesides for him to do to strengthen others in the gospel.

[why me]

there are some complications with some of his writings, yes. the gold pot thing for example, that didn't work out too well for his book, in my opinion. other than that, his writings have been scrutinized ad nauseum by members of this forum and others.

reading louis midgley's piece above, reminded me of times i read his writings in the past. nothing i ever read had more of an impact on my decisions of the church than what midgley wrote. i would stay very late in the night reading his works. after reading them, i knew i had to leave the church.

The problem is simple: why put one's faith in a mere human being and not in the spirit? History is full of interpretation and usually all history has bias from its interpretator. Such is the nature of history and interpretation. I would never leave the church over a historical interpretation by Compton or anyone else. This was the problem with john. He put his faith in Compton or Palmer. And who are they? Just a couple of guys who wrote a couple of books from a particular point of view about lds history.

Edited January 31, 2013 by why me

[rockpond]

It seems that the spirit of the "Dehlin hit piece" is clawing at the walls of its tomb. Strangely moreso now that he is seeking some sort of "turning from", then when he was anxiously engaged in his apostacy.

I think it's rather judgmental to say that he was anxiously engage in apostasy. I'm unclear how interviewing people with differing opinions/faith qualifies as apostasy.

[rockpond]

That being said, John has much work in front of him. He has led many out of the church and yes, in the beginning he helped people stay in the church. But he has much work to do because of those who left because of him. I would recommend some good ol' firesides for him to do to strengthen others in the gospel.

How could he lead people somewhere that he hasn't gone. He never resigned his membership. And if his podcasts helped some people stay (through a faith crisis) and helped others leave, then it would appear that it had more to do with the individual than with John.

[why me]

It seems that the spirit of the "Dehlin hit piece" is clawing at the walls of its tomb. Strangely moreso now that he is seeking some sort of "turning from", then when he was anxiously engaged in his apostacy.

Well, if john was planning a return and a general authority knew it, I would assume that it would be squashed and rightly so. I must say that I was disappointed that it wasn't published but now that I know that John has returned and as forsaken the MS chapters and conferences....well....it is good that the piece was squashed. He has turned over a new leaf.

[why me]

I think it's rather judgmental to say that he was anxiously engage in apostasy. I'm unclear how interviewing people with differing opinions/faith qualifies as apostasy.

He believed in what the apostates said and spread the word. And that was his problem. And now he knows it.

Edited January 31, 2013 by why me

[Mayan Elephant]

sorry why me, i just cant take it anymore.

quashed past participle, past tense of quash (Verb)

Verb

• Reject as invalid, esp. by legal procedure: "his conviction was quashed on appeal".
  
• Put an end to; suppress: "a hospital executive quashed rumors that nursing staff will lose jobs".
  

[Mayan Elephant]

sorry. ill try again.

quashed past participle, past tense of quash (Verb)

Verb

Reject as invalid, esp. by legal procedure: "his conviction was quashed on appeal".

Put an end to; suppress: "a hospital executive quashed rumors that nursing staff will lose jobs".

[why me]

How could he lead people somewhere that he hasn't gone. He never resigned his membership. And if his podcasts helped some people stay (through a faith crisis) and helped others leave, then it would appear that it had more to do with the individual than with John.

His earlier podcasts helped people. Then when he went inactive and into disbelief, his podcasts took on an angry character as he so admits in his podcast and this disbelief and anger affected others and cast doubt in the lds church among a few people. Thus, MS chapters were formed and conferences also. And this were not made up of happy believing members.

[why me]

sorry why me, i just cant take it anymore.

quashed past participle, past tense of quash (Verb)

Verb

• Reject as invalid, esp. by legal procedure: "his conviction was quashed on appeal".
  
• Put an end to; suppress: "a hospital executive quashed rumors that nursing staff will lose jobs".
  

I had squash for dinner and John's piece needed to be quashed.

Do I get a rep point for being a quick learner?

Edited January 31, 2013 by why me

[rongo]

But he has much work to do because of those who left because of him. I would recommend some good ol' firesides for him to do to strengthen others in the gospel.

That is the last thing in the world he, or anyone else in his shoes, should do if he/they are serious about making amends and healing. The mania with getting attention and having a semblance of power and prestige is what got him into this mess, and refusing to turn away from it will hinder his healing and ability to truly help those who are struggling.

I think trying to formally counsel people who are struggling would put him in the same boat as Davis Bitton's title of his Grant Palmer "hit piece:" a man with a broken lance. Dehlin is not the guy to help struggling Saints in a productice and constructive way, and could only ever reach that point now by staying out of the limelight and working on the things he needs to personally work on. The limelight makes this impossible.

[rockpond]

His earlier podcasts helped people. Then when he went inactive and into disbelief, his podcasts took on an angry character as he so admits in his podcast and this disbelief and anger affected others and cast doubt in the lds church among a few people. Thus, MS chapters were formed and conferences also. And this were not made up of happy believing members.

If that's what he said, then I'll take him at his word. But I also know that the MS chapters aren't entirely composed of the disaffected. I know happy believing members who are big fans of MS. But maybe we are the exception.

[why me]

That is the last thing in the world he, or anyone else in his shoes, should do if he/they are serious about making amends and healing. The mania with getting attention and having a semblance of power and prestige is what got him into this mess, and refusing to turn away from it will hinder his healing and ability to truly help those who are struggling.

I think trying to formally counsel people who are struggling would put him in the same boat as Davis Bitton's title of his Grant Palmer "hit piece:" a man with a broken lance. Dehlin is not the guy to help struggling Saints in a productice and constructive way, and could only ever reach that point now by staying out of the limelight and working on the things he needs to personally work on. The limelight makes this impossible.

I agree. But somewhere along the way, he should make amends. How this is done is up to him. I know that Don Bradley is doing a great job now as a returning saint who posted anti stuff when he left the fold.

[wayfarer]

This is all so strange. Dehlin is going back to activity, but most likely not belief. Someone else predicts he won't stay.

I'm going for some training at the temple, and as I think about things, not much of this matters: oversized egos, my own included, get in the way of worshipping and coming to Christ, imo.

We may not agree on the requirements for salvation, and what constitutes a legitimate mormon. But our disagreements are largely irrelevant. I've defended John Dehlin in the past, and have no clue where he's coming from now...it no longer matters in the least to me.

I think of my favorite quote from the Lord of the Rings: "Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed is nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him."

maybe a different perspective matters.

just sayin.

Edited January 31, 2013 by wayfarer

[sethpayne]

Dehlin, who I admire a great deal, just proves the great lie that one can stay in the fold with contrarian views. One cannot.

This is utter nonsense.

[ALarson]

I have to wonder what it's like for John Dehlin to be so publicly discussed. But then, he has put himself out there as a public figure, so I guess this is to be expected.

Louis Midgley,

Thanks for your post and for giving more details of your encounter with Dehlin. I'd read some about this, but wasn't clear as to what actually happened.

Didn't John say that he has a video of this whole thing? It seems I read that somewhere (maybe I'm mistaken). If so, why doesn't he just show it?

[wayfarer]

This is utter nonsense.

agreed on all levels. to be reasonable in one's objections to status quo is no vice -- to advocate against the church is quite a different matter. There is a clear boundary.

[why me]

This is all so strange. Dehlin is going back to activity, but most likely not belief. Someone else predicts he won't stay.

I'm going for some training at the temple, and as I think about things, not much of this matters: oversized egos, my own included, get in the way of worshipping and coming to Christ, imo.

We may not agree on the requirements for salvation, and what constitutes a legitimate mormon. But our disagreements are largely irrelevant. I've defended John Dehlin in the past, and have no clue where he's coming from now...it no longer matters in the least to me.

I am not sure about the disbelief part. I think that he believes but has open questions about the lds church that will most likely never be answered. Such is faith.

[Tacenda]

I have been rather critical of John for quite some time and certainly defended Dan and the others over the controversy. However, I was not referring to the controversy. I was more or less referring to why the piece about john was not published. And if true, why it would be squashed. If John was contemplating coming back to the faith and he was speaking to GAs about his concerns, I can understand why there would be interference from them about the article about john.

What is important is that john is back in the fold and it was because of his meetings with the leaders that prompted his decision. And as he claimed to feel the spirit when speaking with the GA, I can undestand why he would return. And why he may have wished to have the piece squashed.

That being said, John has much work in front of him. He has led many out of the church and yes, in the beginning he helped people stay in the church. But he has much work to do because of those who left because of him. I would recommend some good ol' firesides for him to do to strengthen others in the gospel.

There is a big elephant in the room, imho, and that would be the story of him being tied to someone on his mission getting killed. Could it be that this is what was squashed in the hit list on him? Is it something that JD had already worked out in the past, or is there something about the church also that leaders don't want out? I know John has spoken of things that went on in his mission that weren't right, I think something to do with swift baptisms or something of that nature. Edited January 31, 2013 by Tacenda