John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[rockpond]

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.

I think it was grossly inappropriate for Midgely to make such an implication in a public setting. And continues to be inappropriate for him to repeat it here. I thought speculating about someone's connection to a possible homicide was grounds for removal from the thread.

[Tacenda]

I think it was grossly inappropriate for Midgely to make such an implication in a public setting. And continues to be inappropriate for him to repeat it here. I thought speculating about someone's connection to a possible homicide was grounds for removal from the thread.

Yes I've definitely been kicked off a thread for bringing in some things about Warren Jeffs. Not that that is anything in comparison.

[ALarson]

Again, is there actually a video of this communication between Louis Midgley and John Dehlin or am I mistaken that is something Dehlin has stated?

[rongo]

Again, is there actually a video of this communication between Louis Midgley and John Dehlin or am I mistaken that is something Dehlin has stated?

I think, if it exists, it's like the Spalding Manuscript: useful only as long as its contents are not open to investigation. Finding "Manuscript Story - Conneaut Creek" in Hawaii among E.D. Howe's papers was a huge blow to the cachet of the "Spalding Story" for decades ---- until Fairchild and Rice made the full text available and housed the manuscript at Oberlin. Similarly, if Dehlin has a video, there's no way it is going to surface, because . . .

a) he doesn't come off in a good light, and says things that he doesn't want to have surface

or

b) he is sincere in his change and doesn't want to continue to stick his thumb in the eye of the Church, which dwelling on stuff like this would do.

[Libs]

John did state that there was video (several, actually), but I don't know if that has been made public.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Libs

[Calm]

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.

To continue to call it a "hit piece" is to assume that Dehlin's presentation of it (or at least his repetition of what his friend, who had never read it and only heard about it secondhand himself, called it) is accurate. Until it has been published, there is no public documentation that can demonstrate this is an accurate portrayal and thus that label should not be used.

Having said that, I have heard from the author himself at the time of the original attempt at suppression that there was no reference to his friend having been killed on his mission...my memory says he didn't even know about it (and as Lou discussed above it would appear his only reason for bringing that time period and what happened in the mission was that he was trying to find an accurate view of Dehlin's loss of faith...when and how it developed which makes sense to me because Lou is interested in how ideas develop, including the process that individuals go through to get to certain points).

It was originally over 100 pages, can't remember if that included the footnotes or not. What it was primarily is a collection of quotes from Dehlin himself along with some quotes from those who followed him and then some overall context provided.

His friend died due to being in a place he was't supposed to be (on a lake at the wrong time of day where a storm popped up and caused the small boat they were in to capsize...they were in the boat in an attempt to get some records in order that someone could be baptized, a good thing but they were breaking mission rules in going out it so it could be done by a certain date). That information should make it obvious there would be no reason for that event to be included in the paper as described.

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think it was grossly inappropriate for Midgely to make such an implication in a public setting. And continues to be inappropriate for him to repeat it here. I thought speculating about someone's connection to a possible homicide was grounds for removal from the thread.

He asked him if his faith issues began with that tragic event (the 'involvement' does not have to imply 'caused' but can be simply one who participates...and those who are involved in tragedies often have emotional and mental responses to them...such as PSTD...asking if a vet who suffers from PSTD was involved in the war in Iraq is not asking them if they were the ones who started the war in most cases, but an effort to understand the causes of their current experience). I know of others who wonder how God can allow those who are supposedly doing his work to suffer and die, they see it as highly problematic and in some cases it leads them to doubt so trying to clarify if that event contributed to Dehlin's doubt is hardly remarkable in any way.

It was not homicide, why would you think it was? It was an accidental death, missionaries on a boat in a lake where they shouldn't have been, one (two?) who were drowned when a storm came up (apparently sudden storms were not unusual for the area IIRC). It was reported in the newspaper at the time (including Church News IIRC). That is where I read about it after Dehlin expressed displeasure on (allegedly) trying to connect it with him.

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Yes I've definitely been kicked off a thread for bringing in some things about Warren Jeffs. Not that that is anything in comparison.

You are right, there is no comparison between asking if someone was involved (as in a participant) in an accidental drowning as it is connecting them with someone who has been jailed for abuse of underage children among other things.

[Brian 2.0]

Sorry to use this term, but I don't know what to call it... Is the "hit-piece" ever going to be available to read in any form?

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

I think it was grossly inappropriate for Midgely to make such an implication in a public setting. And continues to be inappropriate for him to repeat it here. I thought speculating about someone's connection to a possible homicide was grounds for removal from the thread.

Sigh. There is no "hit list," there is no "hit piece," there was never any allegation in The Infamous Unseen Essay that John Dehlin was involved in a "homicide," and nobody -- not I, not Greg Smith, not Lou Midgley -- has sought to blame Dehlin for anybody's death.

Good grief, people. Please try to keep this discussion tethered at least loosely to something related to the real world.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Brian 2.0]

Is the Dan Peterson review of John Dehlin ever going to be available to read? I'm not sure if that is what it is. A review of him as a person or his Mormon stories work?

[Daniel Peterson]

There is no Dan Peterson review of John Dehlin.

There is a Greg Smith review of John Dehlin's work.

[Brian 2.0]

Sorry. Again, i didnt know what to call it.

Is the Greg Smith review of John Dehlin's work ever going to be able to read?

[Calm]

Sorry to use this term, but I don't know what to call it... Is the "hit-piece" ever going to be available to read in any form?

I would suggest "Smith's article about Dehlin" or the "Dehlin article".

Oops...see I am late.

My answer is I don't know, it hasn't been announced to my knowledge. I do know it has gone through updating and revision (to at the very least keep it current) since that time so I would not be surprised to learn that the author intends it to be published at some point.

Edited February 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

Greg's original draft of the essay, and his subsequent revisions, contain absolutely nothing regarding a missionary death. They never mentioned it. It wasn't mentioned and then later taken out: it was never mentioned at all.

I've read the original and one of the later revisions.

WW

Edited February 1, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Teancum]

I certainly don't, for the simple reason that I know his version of that story is patently false.

I have learned to assume that everything John Dehlin does is driven by his overwhelming need to draw attention to himself. I have also learned that he has no compunction whatsoever to twist the truth in order to present himself as someone of importance who possesses power and influence.

As the de facto leader of the alienated Latter-day Saints who once flew the Mormonstories banner, Dehlin was able to enjoy some measure of that sense of importance he craves. Within the Church, Dehlin will never be able to replicate the sense of power and influence he enjoyed over the course of the past few years. Therefore I can confidently predict that this will be his last rebound back into church activity, and it will not last very long. Whether or not he can once again reclaim the scepter of his former influence among his apostate friends remains to be seen. But I doubt it. Rather, I suspect he will then see fulfilled at least one portion of Joseph Smith's often-quoted prophecy: "[He] shall be despised by those that [once] flattered [him]."

Now there is the charitable go after the lost sheep attitude and the rejoicing in heaven over one repentent sinner that the gospel teaches. Wow. Simply wow. Why the loathing post Will? I think you would be happy at this turn of events. John's returns and comments gives you lots of fodder to toss at those who are in apostasy. You can paint them all as loathsome sinners and gloat about it.

[Teancum]

Had he not been quite recently proclaiming that he "got Dan Peterson fired," I might have been inclined to cut the guy some slack in the short term. Unfortunately, everything I have seen from Dehlin in the past few months serves to confirm my sense of his motivations. A man may, I believe, change his stars, but I don't foresee this leopard changing his spots.

Indeed. Your spots are fairly predictably despicable as usual.

[Libs]

Whomever told John about the, supposed, "hit piece" allegedly told him that the missionary death was included in the piece. I don't know if John assumed it was going to be connected to him, or if the informant told him that, as a fact.

[why me]

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?

The problem is that we don't know if this is true or not. The bigger picture is why the piece was never published but now I have the possible answer to that question. Because john was planning a return and there may have been pressure to have it quashed.

By the way, you and I write alike. I was also writing squashed until mayan elephant corrected my spelling. It is quashed. Maya is a great teacher.

Edited February 1, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

The problem is that we don't know if this is true or not. The bigger picture is why the piece was never published but now I have the possible answer to that question. Because john was planning a return and there may have been pressure to have it quashed.

By the way, you and I write alike. I was also writing squashed until mayan elephant corrected my spelling. It is quashed. Maya is a great teacher.

People in my world would look at me wrong if I said it like that. The dictionary meaning for squashed is press or flatten, so good enough for me.

[Brian 2.0]

So, assuming the author of the Dehlin review could publish or post the article, is he not doing so because he now believes it should not be published, or is he simply honoring requests for it not to be published. Basically, I'll we ever be able to read the piece?

[Daniel Peterson]

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.

[Daniel Peterson]

The problem is that we don't know if this is true or not.

I do.

The bigger picture is why the piece was never published but now I have the possible answer to that question. Because john was planning a return and there may have been pressure to have it quashed.

That's not the true answer.

[volgadon]

People in my world would look at me wrong if I said it like that. The dictionary meaning for squashed is press or flatten, so good enough for me.

Yes, but that makes it sound like someone sat on the paper.=)

[Louis Midgley]

Dehlin simply could not possibly have formed the idea on 19 March 2012 that Greg Smith’s essay would finger him in the death of a fellow missionary in Guatemala from anything I said on 29 March. The reason I posted my notes was, among other things, to dispel that tall tale, and to make it perfectly clear that it was his unfaith that was for me the issue. And anyone who has read my essay “Defending the King and His Kingdom,” can see that, without mentioning Dehlin’s name, that is exactly what I eventually published.

I thought that what I had posted earlier today would have shut down much of the rubbish that is being passed around by John Dehlin and his followers concerning an essay by Greg Smith. I am now inclined to make a few additional comments in an effort to clarify some crucial issues.

1. Greg’s essay, which was not commissioned by Dan Peterson or by me, but was refereed by a host of people, if it had been published in the Review would have run, I estimate, to something slightly over sixty pages (of course, including footnotes). This is not an unusually long essay. Wild, unfounded speculation on this thread has even had that essay up to 200 manuscript pages.

2. The self-serving and utterly false tall tale that Dehlin seems to be telling, and some of those who have posted on this thread, is that Greg Smith had tried to pin some unfortunate death of a missionary in Guatemala on Dehlin. This is utterly, completely false. Greg’s essay never once even mentioned Dehlin’s mission. Every draft of his essay, and I have read them all, examines what Dehlin has posted recently on Facebook and his various web ventures, including some of his podcasts or interviews. It does not even go back to the beginnings of his Mormon Stories venture.

3. Why did I ask Dehlin on 29 March 2012 what he might know about the death of a missionary on a lake in Guatemala? The reason is that I had heard, and I do not recall when or where, perhaps from Dehlin himself or from someone sympathetic with Dehlin, about some rather strange things that happened in Guatemala when he was a missionary there. I have heard vague rumors about a robbery of missionaries, and also a drowning.

4. In the morning of 29 March both Dan Peterson and I spent two hours with the employee of the Maxwell Institute and someone who does not think that the faith of the Saints should be defended, who had on his own initiative (or otherwise) already informed one of Dehlin’s associates that an essay on Dehlin was ready to be published in the Review. This fellow had not then read the essay, and may not have even known the author’s name. At the time Morgan Davis leaked this information that was immediately passed, Dehlin started sending email messages to those he considered his friends insisting that they stop publication of an essay he and they had not read. Dan had to go to a meeting, but I continued the unpleasant for another two hours. In this conversation Davis mentioned that he was aware that the Guatemala Mission in which Dehlin served for most of his mission had some strange things take place. He was, he said, in a neighboring mission and heard stories.

5. After having had this conversation immediately prior to shifting to UVU, I took the opportunity to ask Dehlin what he knew about some incidents that had been mentioned to me earlier in the day. Dehlin was very forthcoming in answering my questions. He is not bashful about describing what he considered the mess in Guatemala. This should not be news to those who are aware of the claims he has made concerning the Mission President, and some or many missionaries. I heard these tales in detail from Dehlin at the FAIR conference in Sandy, Utah, in 2005. That conversation, according to Dehlin, went on for five hours. After that conversation, Dehlin immediately posted on his blog a quite sanguine–that is, favorable–account of our long and detailed conversation. I can, if anyone would care to read what Dehlin wrote about me at that time, post his blog entry. And I could also post his email to me and Dan Peterson in which he wanted the two of us to join him in his so-called apologetic venture. We declined. The reason being that are interested in publishing serious scholarship and not what he had in mind.

6. So my question to Dehlin on 29 March was an tiny little effort to get his opinion about a couple of incidents that he might have known about while he served in Guatemala. Dehlin loves to gossip about his mission. He did so to one of my colleagues at BYU, who forwarded a written version of his opinions to Elder Oaks, who looked into Dehlin’s claims, and even phoned him to discuss them.

7. My colleague, however, never believed that what Dehlin was concerned about was more than a struggle between status-seeking, aggressive, immature missionaries that had troubled a mission for a while. I believe that Dehlin now blames his troubles on an Assistant to the President rather than the President. But his opinions are so flexible and unstable that it is hard to tell exactly what his current opinion is on this matter. That is why I asked him if his effort to make himself a public figure and a thorn in the side of the Church, was not a desire for vengeance with roots in his troubled mission. He corrected me on 29 March by insisting that his crisis of faith–his words–came later when he was finishing up at BYU–that is, in 1993, and not on his mission.