John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[daz2]

Dan, I think we are in agreement. I know this may be hard to believe, but I am a fan of yours, and also a fan of John's (and a fan of Lou's, and Greg's).

[Louis Midgley]

Dan:

Please sent me a private message so I can have a look at this amazing stuff.

[rockpond]

Well, perhaps I'm being too hasty when I read personal dislike into Kishkumen's language about us. Here's a sampling of it -- I'm leaving some out, and have culled it from only a single thread -- from within just the past twenty-four hours:

He's described Professor Midgley as "scary," "deceptive," "sick," "disturbed," a "prince of demons," "irrational," "nasty," "appalling," "vile," a liar, an "albatross on the neck of the LDS Church," and someone with no "decency." He's compared the two of us to "the Inquisition," "barracudas," and "cockroaches," pronouncing us "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," "bad men" who are guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before Church disciplinary councils and tried for our membership.

I think that, deep down, he really both likes and respects us, and just wants us to be more gentle in our rhetoric. Don't you?

And, trust me, Kishkumen's pal Scratch and some of the others there are dishing up pure demonizing fiction, complete with mythical pending Church disciplinary councils and insubordination to the leaders of the Church and "inquisitions" and . . . It's unutterably bizarre. But the folks over there seem to be a gullible bunch.

Well, like I said... much of what you are saying is like a secret code to me. I don't know who Kishkumen & Scratch are. I also don't know what this other place "over there" is.

I'll reiterate that I'm clueless as to all the goings on with this issue. I just am not a fan of all the harsh language and judgement but maybe it is warranted - I wouldn't know.

[Libs]

If he told him that, then it was because he hadn't actually read the essay.

The very first version of Greg's essay, the one that existed before anything had been revised in it for the Mormon Studies Review, says nothing at all about Dehlin's mission in Guatemala. The only mention of the word Guatemala is in a quote from Dehlin that is taken from his interview with Michael Coe, and it has to do with the identification of Guatemalans as Lamanites by Spencer Kimball.

It does have one footnote to Missionary Guide: Training for Missionaries (Salt Lake City, Utah: Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988), to support a reference which talks about Jesus Christ being the Son of God. That's all there is.

The business about the paper talking about a missionary death is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the entire Dehlin podcast. It unfortunately leads him to believe this:

And, Lou has already clarified this earlier in this thread.

Lou is correct - the essay never mentioned a missionary death, nor does it even talk about anything related to Dehlin's mission. I know this for a fact, because I'm looking at it right now.

WW

Okay, I think that's pretty clear, by now. But, 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.

Thanks, Wiki.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, like I said... much of what you are saying is like a secret code to me. I don't know who Kishkumen & Scratch are. I also don't know what this other place "over there" is.

I'll reiterate that I'm clueless as to all the goings on with this issue. I just am not a fan of all the harsh language and judgement but maybe it is warranted - I wouldn't know.

Then perhaps it would be wise to postpone expressing an opinion in public until you've had time and opportunity to become more clued in.

[Mayan Elephant]

dan, if you are no longer affiliated with the maxwell institute, why dont you just release the so-called essay about dehlin and be done with it? if you have nothing to hide and nothing is inappropriate, then publish the original and modified versions, yes? if in fact there is no reason to fear this holland guy that dehlin pocketed, make the essay available to everyone. stop the speculation about your so-called hit piece by releasing what was prepared? what could you possibly be afraid of? (i know, that is a preposition at the end of a sentence). dehlin is back from his darkest moments, he is returning the ring he has lorded over for years. he has suffered enough for our pain and immorality, and he is back. you cant hurt him with anything you have to say. so, why not, out with it? lets see what you boys were doing over there at the maxwell thing.

[ALarson]

Also, someone please just release the video of the conversation between Louis Midgley and John Dehlin at the UVU that evening. That should easily confirm what has been posted about it here.

(If one really exists.)

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll reiterate that I'm clueless as to all the goings on with this issue. I just am not a fan of all the harsh language and judgement but maybe it is warranted - I wouldn't know.

I'm not a fan of harsh language and judgment, either. But, after six years and perhaps even more of such vilification by Scratch and his sidekick Kishkumen and an ever-changing if small cast of extras -- and it's literal vilification, being described as, among many other things, "vile" -- I don't think I'm being particularly rough or hasty in expressing my lack of enthusiasm for this sort of stuff.

[ALarson]

ALarson:

Please read the two long items I have already posted. Greg Smith's essay had already been pulled from the issue of the Review.. And Dehlin had heard about Greg's essay, without knowing its content or who had written it because the fellow with whom Dan Peterson and I had been having a long conversation at the Maxwell Institute on 29 March 2013 had already, either acting on his own or from a request from someone else, had told a close associate of Dahlin's about the essay and this fellow had told Dehlin about it. This had already caused Dehlin in a panic to write email messages to six people, including Hans Mattson, an emeritus Area Seventy from Sweden, Elder Marlin Jensen, and Elder Holland, as well as Phil Barlow, Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens in an effort to prevent the publication of this essay. He clearly wanted censorship. Dan I had the morning of 29 March had that conversation with Morgan Davis because of his and Dehlin's effort to censor the Review.

My conversation with John Dehln in the afternoon of 29 March, which was long after he had made a stink about Greg Smith essay, was strictly private. The two people standing directly behind me hoping to hear what was being said told me they could not hear a word, and Scott Gordon, who was sitting next to Dehlin on the speakers stand could not hear a word of what was said either.

Thank you for clarifying the sequence. This is very confusing and I apologize.

[rockpond]

Then perhaps it would be wise to postpone expressing an opinion in public until you've had time and opportunity to become more clued in.

I was expressing an opinion on what is actually happening on this thread. The kishkumen & scratch stuff is apparently happening in an as yet undisclosed location.

[Daniel Peterson]

dan, if you are no longer affiliated with the maxwell institute, why dont you just release the so-called essay about dehlin and be done with it?

Patience. What will happen will happen.

There are factors involved in this matter -- none even remotely similar to those imagined by the most vocal critics -- that need to be considered.

if you have nothing to hide and nothing is inappropriate, then publish the original and modified versions, yes?

I have nothing to hide. Opinions will vary about what is appropriate and what isn't. (Scratch and Kishkumen and their small band of fellow travelers see little that's appropriate in anything I do.)

And, incidentally, there have been no substantial changes to the essay since it was blocked back in May. I'll be accused of lying about that, of course, but it's true.

if in fact there is no reason to fear this holland guy that dehlin pocketed, make the essay available to everyone. stop the speculation about your so-called hit piece by releasing what was prepared?

I have nothing to fear from Elder Holland, with whom I've long had, and continue to have, a very good relationship.

what could you possibly be afraid of?

I'm afraid of several things, but none of them has any connection with this matter.

dehlin is back from his darkest moments, he is returning the ring he has lorded over for years. he has suffered enough for our pain and immorality, and he is back. you cant hurt him with anything you have to say. so, why not, out with it? lets see what you boys were doing over there at the maxwell thing.

I wish John Dehlin and his family all the best.

[Louis Midgley]

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.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

[Scott Lloyd]

I was expressing an opinion on what is actually happening on this thread. The kishkumen & scratch stuff is apparently happening in an as yet undisclosed location.

I won't post a link to that contemptible board. But it's easy enough to find for those who don't want to be "clueless."

[Louis Midgley]

Dan:

The question is: when did Dehlin make his stink about Greg's paper? It was before the 29th of March. We had that not so pleasant conversation with Morgan that morning and that was after he had informed Dehlin of Greg's essay. When and why it was pulled is a different question. And I am not sure that Dehlin had a thing to do with that. Instead, it could be that he was used by others as an excuse to give you the book and cancel the Review.

[mfbukowski]

Well, perhaps I'm being too hasty when I read personal dislike into Kishkumen's language about us. Here's a sampling of it -- I'm leaving some out, and have culled it from only a single thread -- from within just the past twenty-four hours:

He's described Professor Midgley as "scary," "deceptive," "sick," "disturbed," a "prince of demons," "irrational," "nasty," "appalling," "vile," a liar, an "albatross on the neck of the LDS Church," and someone with no "decency." He's compared the two of us to "the Inquisition," "barracudas," and "cockroaches," pronouncing us "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," "bad men" who are guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before Church disciplinary councils and tried for our membership.

I think that, deep down, he really both likes and respects us, and just wants us to be more gentle in our rhetoric. Don't you?

You missed your calling.

You should be doing stand-up comedy.

He must be wearing out his thesaurus.

Edited February 1, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

...this holland guy that dehlin pocketed,...

An interesting phrase which clearly shows depth of understanding about how these things work.

The aliens have landed.

[rockpond]

I won't post a link to that contemptible board. But it's easy enough to find for those who don't want to be "clueless."

I just did a search for the initials that were mentioned earlier. I'll opt to remain clueless rather than get involved over there.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just did a search for the initials that were mentioned earlier. I'll opt to remain clueless rather than get involved over there.

That's your privilege. But again I say, in that event it's best not to voice an opinion from a standpoint of ignorance.

[why me]

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.

[why me]

I just did a search for the initials that were mentioned earlier. I'll opt to remain clueless rather than get involved over there.

I take a lot of abuse on that site. But I am one of a couple of defenders who dare to tread there.

[rockpond]

That's your privilege. But again I say, in that event it's best not to voice an opinion from a standpoint of ignorance.

I admitted my ignorance but I don't think it changes my point that it doesn't reflect well to disparage someone on a public board when the other participants know nothing about the individual being disparaged. I never stated that Lou & Dan's comments were incorrect, just that it wasn't reflecting well on them from the view of an outsider (me).

[rockpond]

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.

CFR that Dehlin saw himself as a God.

Could we please try to decrease the rhetoric and be respectful?

[Scott Lloyd]

I admitted my ignorance but I don't think it changes my point that it doesn't reflect well to disparage someone on a public board when the other participants know nothing about the individual being disparaged. I never stated that Lou & Dan's comments were incorrect, just that it wasn't reflecting well on them from the view of an outsider (me).

And I assure you I, for one, will give that (judgmental) view all the consideration and merit it deserves.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

I admitted my ignorance but I don't think it changes my point that it doesn't reflect well to disparage someone on a public board when the other participants know nothing about the individual being disparaged. I never stated that Lou & Dan's comments were incorrect, just that it wasn't reflecting well on them from the view of an outsider (me).

Most here, I think, are pretty much aware of that other board -- which originated essentially as a place for sneering at and mocking this board and is largely devoted to deriding and defaming specific Latter-day Saints -- and of Scratch and Kishkumen in particular.

Sorry, but I don't keep track of who has just joined here. I myself have been participating here much less than I once did, and I'm just not paying attention that closely.