John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[sethpayne]

1) Dan Peterson did not commission an article to be written about you. He didn't ask for one. He did not seek one out. He simply happened to be the editor of the Review at the time that the article was submitted. That is the truth. You have repeatedly and publicly maligned him on this issue.

2) At the time that you emailed him about it, he hadn't even read it yet.

3) Greg Smith wrote the article on his own initiative. Nobody asked him to write it. He wrote it because he wanted to write it.

4) I've read it - the very first version that was sent to the Mormon Studies Review. It is a review of MormonStories.

5) The article makes no mention of your mission. It never did, in any revision. The conversation you had with Lou Midgley produced a severe misunderstanding regarding what the article was about. I cringed when I listened to the section of your podcast that talked about this, because it was so wrong. How could the situation have been so severely misunderstood?

Lou Midgley often responds to FAIR "Ask the Apologist" requests. He is often thanked by the questioners for his caring responses. I have seen Lou volunteer to personally visit people that are having difficulties. Just two days ago, I was conversing on Facebook with an old friend that I haven't seen for over 20 years. He told me that he had read an article that Lou wrote, and liked it so much that he called Dr. Midgley at home to talk to him about it (his wife was mortified that he would call Dr. Midgley at home). He said that Lou was very gracious and talked with him for 20 minutes. Yes, he is passionate. The world would be a more boring place without him. That is the Lou Midgley that I know.

FAIR will never disassociate itself from Lou Midgley and Dan Peterson.

With regard to FAIR and tone, I have, for several years now, volunteered to fix any issue found in the FAIR Wiki regarding tone. I have made this offer both on this board, and over on MormonDiscussions. And I have made such corrections many times. The offer still stands - If you or anyone else finds something with an objectionable or un-Christlike tone in the FAIR Wiki, I will fix it immediately. If you want to help FAIR, then help us locate and identify un-Christlike tone or phrases in our online works. For that, you would truly have our gratitude.

WW

I have always known WW to be both honest and thorough. He chooses his words carefully and delivers them with precision.

Perhaps it is time that all parties call a truce, forgive each other for misunderstandings and move on. It seems to me neither side has acted in malice with respect to the "hit piece."

I do hope the piece will be made available. At that point we can hold its author, Greg Smith, fully accountable for its content (unless, of course, it is officially published).

Edited February 14, 2013 by sethpayne

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't mean to judge the entire enterprise. I should probably communicate more carefully. And I know that FAIR does a ton of good -- and I tried to say as much in my recent screencast.

I'm clearly angry/hurt at the tactics of Daniel and Lou, and have a hard time separating them and their tactics from FAIR. For me they are tied together very tightly. I'm not sure why that is.

What is the relationship between DP/Lou and FAIR? Are they on the board? Are they advisors? Will you continue to bring him on as a keynoter? Has he renounced his (and Lou's) past methods of attacking individuals (like me)?

Am I wrong to associate FAIR w/ DP and Lou? Does FAIR condemn the attacking of individuals as an apologetic tactic?

I'm tired of being demonized and lied about. Stop it.

[Darren10]

Perhaps it is time that all parties call a truce, forgive each other for misunderstandings and move on. It seems to me neither side has acted in malice with respect to the "hit piece."

I do hope the piece will be made available. At that point we can hold its author, Greg Smith, fully accountable for its content (unless, of course, it is officially published).

It is my very distinct impression, which I see no way around it,that only one side is on the attack against the other. The other side has already offered peace and forgiveness *and* a willingness to correct their mistakess and make amends to grievances if only they were pointed out what those supposed offenses are. The side being attacked is still waiting, and has been waiting long before this thread, for John Dehlin to specify the malice shown to those he is a self champion to represent. It's also amazingly clear at this point that John Dehlin's accusation against Dan Peterson is completely without merit.

[Darren10]

John Dehlin;

I think at this point that your accusations against Dan Peterson has been made rashly and hastily on your part. He has done no such thing you accused him of doing. He commissioned no hit piece on you. No hit piece was written against you. Are you being honest in your dealings with Dan Peterson? Stop with these attacks and look to what *you* need to do to make amends. This is what you say you stand for so act on it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Also, John, you'll so far more to help disaffected Mormons by rectifying your libel against Dan and doing what you need to do to reconcile with him.

(Again, please apply this to all other apologists you can think of which you have maligned)

[why me]

I'm happy to be corrected, but it seems to me that vilifying an organisation not for the content of its messages but rather because it associates with a man whom one personally dislikes at least somewhat resembles a classic argumentum ad hominem.

Dan has a problem. The critics spread a message about him. And it is believed by a certain group of people. The best way for a lie to become a truth is through repetition as truth

Edited February 14, 2013 by why me

[Darren10]

Dan has a problem. The critics spread a message about him. And it is believed by a certain group of people. The best way for a lie to become a truth is through repetition as truth

I know you meant, "the best way for a lie to be perceived as truth is through repetition as truth".

Edited February 14, 2013 by Darren10

[why me]

I have always known WW to be both honest and thorough. He chooses his words carefully and delivers them with precision.

Perhaps it is time that all parties call a truce, forgive each other for misunderstandings and move on. It seems to me neither side has acted in malice with respect to the "hit piece."

I do hope the piece will be made available. At that point we can hold its author, Greg Smith, fully accountable for its content (unless, of course, it is officially published).

Here is the problem. The 'hit piece' idea was spread by a critic of dan. It got traction on critic boards. Suddenly, Dan was demonized. Why? I would say that there was personal dislike toward Dan to put it mildly. And what is there to hold Greg accountable for? Writing a piece? Writing an article about MormonStories?

[why me]

I know you meant, "the best way for a lie to be perceived as truth is through repetition as truth".

For the critics the lie became a truth, their truth.

[why me]

I think I'm trying to say that associating so closely with Daniel Peterson while he supports tactics like commissioning a hit piece on me might be your biggest issue at this point...for the circles I run in, anyway.

I think that this has been proven false. However, I think that I know how the rumor was spread but I can't be sure. I would venture to say that someone had an informant at the MI and this informant may have gotten it wrong...or the informer's handler gotten it wrong. But in the spy business we can never be sure.

[sethpayne]

It is my very distinct impression, which I see no way around it,that only one side is on the attack against the other. The other side has already offered peace and forgiveness *and* a willingness to correct their mistakess and make amends to grievances if only they were pointed out what those supposed offenses are. The side being attacked is still waiting, and has been waiting long before this thread, for John Dehlin to specify the malice shown to those he is a self champion to represent. It's also amazingly clear at this point that John Dehlin's accusation against Dan Peterson is completely without merit.

Be that as it may, I still say much more could be gained from this situation by us all swallowing our collective pride.

[sethpayne]

Here is the problem. The 'hit piece' idea was spread by a critic of dan. It got traction on critic boards. Suddenly, Dan was demonized. Why? I would say that there was personal dislike toward Dan to put it mildly. And what is there to hold Greg accountable for? Writing a piece? Writing an article about MormonStories?

Greg Smith should, and he knows this an an author, 100% responsible for the contents of the article -- regardless of what that article contains. If the article is published there is some tacit approval given by the publisher at the very least.

So in the end, it is probably going to a be a 100 page really boring overview of 7 years of Mormon Stories. He'll point out how this interviewee was mad at the Church ... and how John said some things at times that weren't very nice ... who knows???

Every author knows they will be held accountable for what we write. Indeed it is one of the reasons we write. Greg knows this.

So, when we do get to read this 100 page review of MS then, and only then, can we properly judge the contents and place its conclusions squarely in the lap of Greg Smith --- good or bad.

[why me]

Every author knows they will be held accountable for what we write. Indeed it is one of the reasons we write. Greg knows this.

The problem however was that Dan was held accountable for a piece he did not commission nor authored. His name was dragged through the mud and perhaps he even lost his position at MI because of it. I see no justice at all in his case. And if this rumor was spread by people who have a personal vendetta against him...they should be held accountable.

[sethpayne]

The problem however was that Dan was held accountable for a piece he did not commission nor authored. His name was dragged through the mud and perhaps he even lost his position at MI because of it. I see no justice at all in his case. And if this rumor was spread by people who have a personal vendetta against him...they should be held accountable.

And that is why I am saying let's all just admit our faults and give this whole thing a rest.

Here, I'll start:

I apologize for anything I have stated -- positive or negative -- regarding the John Dehlin "hit piece." When I do have a chance to read it I will hold Greg Smith accountable for its contents (unless it is formally published).

[Darren10]

Be that as it may, I still say much more could be gained from this situation by us all swallowing our collective pride.

Except neither Dan nor FAIR contributors here have posted based on their pride. Only on their sense of truth and morality. I do not advocate setting those aside in the name of "peace".

[Darren10]

And that is why I am saying let's all just admit our faults and give this whole thing a rest.

Here, I'll start:

I apologize for anything I have stated -- positive or negative -- regarding the John Dehlin "hit piece." When I do have a chance to read it I will hold Greg Smith accountable for its contents (unless it is formally published).

That's very lame. Dude, there was no hit piece. You don't even have to feign its existence by placing the two words in quotation marks. If something doesn't exist, why apologize for doing nothing but pointing out it doesn't exist? And how in the world do you hold someone accountable for something they did not do?

If John Dehlin truly stands by what he says he believes than he can move his cause forward greatly by publicly admiting there was no hit piece on him and that Dan peterson comissioned no such hit piece. Period.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Darren10

[sethpayne]

That's very lame. Dude, there was no hit piece. You don't even have to feint its existence by placing the two words in quotation marks. If something doesn't exist, why apologize for doing nothing but pointing out it doesn't exist? And how in the world do you hold someone accountable for something they did not do?

Dude, Wiki Wonka just said he's read the damn thing. Bill Hamlbin has read it. It exists. Greg wrote it. Big deal

If John Dehlin truly stands by what he says he believes than he can move his cause forward greatly by publicly admiting there was no hit piece on him and that Dan peterson comissioned no such hit piece. Period.

Problem is there was a hit piece. Several people here, whom you would trust, including Wiki Wonka, Bill Hamblin, and Will Schryver have all spoken of reading it.

So for John to be concerned about this piece seems reasonable. You may disagree with his methods but I suspect if you were worried that your reputation was going to be smeared publicly (regardless of its actual contents or whether or or not it actual is going to published or not) you would try to prevent it too.

Edited February 14, 2013 by sethpayne

[Darren10]

Dude, Wiki Wonka just said he's read the damn thing. Bill Hamlbin has read it. It exists. Greg wrote it. Big deal

Except it was NOT a "hit piece".

Problem is there was a hit piece. Several people here, whom you would trust, including Wiki Wonka, Bill Hamblin, and Will Schryver have all spoken of reading it.

Here's Wonka which you yourself cited (bold mine):

1) Dan Peterson did not commission an article to be written about you. He didn't ask for one. He did not seek one out. He simply happened to be the editor of the Review at the time that the article was submitted. That is the truth. You have repeatedly and publicly maligned him on this issue.

2) At the time that you emailed him about it, he hadn't even read it yet.

3) Greg Smith wrote the article on his own initiative. Nobody asked him to write it. He wrote it because he wanted to write it.

4) I've read it - the very first version that was sent to the Mormon Studies Review. It is a review of MormonStories.

5) The article makes no mention of your mission. It never did, in any revision. The conversation you had with Lou Midgley produced a severe misunderstanding regarding what the article was about. I cringed when I listened to the section of your podcast that talked about this, because it was so wrong. How could the situation have been so severely misunderstood?

http://www.mormondia...entry1209223986

According to Wonka, Greg Smith wrote "a review of MormonStories". How do you label a review as a "hit piece"?

Here's BFUBFBEO'Brien (bold mine):

But I'm always left scratching my head. The example you've given so far of Dan/Lou commissioning a "hit piece" on you is, as Allen pointed out, a total misunderstanding, as it was neither commissioned nor is it a "hit piece" (I've also read it).

http://www.mormondia...entry1209223979

O'Brien has read it and outright says it was not a 'hit piece'.

Here's awyatt who is Allen as cited by O'Brien (bold mine):

You might want to check with your contacts inside MI again. I know from talking to first-hand sources that Dan didn't commission such a thing, and most certainly not a "hit piece." Greg Smith wrote a review of Mormon Stories on his own impetus, without request or commission from Dan.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209223918

Do you still think it's a "hit piece" when those who have read it say it wasn't a "hit piece"? I've no desire to apologize for something that does not exist. I've no desire to apologize for others merely pointing out simple truth to John Dehlin. John Dehlin, if he is true to his declared beliefs and standards, should publicly acknowledge *his own* false judgement against Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley. I'm 100% confident that doing so will do far more to help those disaffected Mormons he expresses such profound caring for than by ignoring his own failing to keep 1/10 of God's commandments which He gave to Moses and continue on as the self-proclaimed shepard of those poor trodden on LDS members who cannot get the Christlike fellowship from their own wards and stakes. Dehlin's acknowledgement may not take his narrative to where he has wanted it to go and has fostered it to go; but it will indeed go towards the direction it should: Christlike love and humility. His fold need to see that from Dehlin and see the light shine from it via John Dehlin's good example.

So for John to be concerned about this piece seems reasonable. You may disagree with his methods but I suspect if you were worried that your reputation was going to be smeared publicly (regardless of its actual contents or whether or or not it actual is going to published or not) you would try to prevent it too.

At this point I certainly hope you can see that John Dehlin's opposition to Dan Peterson and others regarding a "hit piece" was based upon a "misunderstanding" (I'll risk violating this boards own guidlines and call it lies) and that it is he and he alone who is smearing others. Nobody here on this thread smeared John Dahlin. Nobody here has smeared anyone except for John Dahlin smearing whom he projects as his opposition.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Rivers]

I really want to read this infamous article. All this talk about it has me really curious.

[emarkp]

This is my first post on this message board. My past experience with apologetics was just my own responding to criticisms of the church back in the 90s and early 2000s in places like usenet groups (alt.religion.mormon, and then after it was organized, soc.religion.mormon) and more topically general boards. I've bumped into FAIR on and off, and generally enjoyed what I saw. I also have a number of books from FARMS before it became MI.

Sometime last year I heard about this whole kerfuffle at MI and it got me reading more of Peterson's work (listening to FAIR lectures mostly, but I also encountered the Peterson interview from Mormon Stories on youtube). I hadn't heard about Mormon Stories until the last few weeks, and have listened to precisely two stories -- the multi-part interview with Dan Peterson and the interview with Dehlin that started this thread.

The last few years have been dark times for my soul, struggling with a lot of frustration over policy in the church rather than doctrine or history. It had sucked most of the joy out of church for me.

Until I started diving into FAIR, etc. I saw a richness of study and apologetics there that got me excited about bits of the gospel again, in a way I hadn't felt in some time. The Dan Peterson interview with Mormon Stories in particular was a massively positive uplift. Then something really special and personal happened last week that finally broke fully through the sadness and frustration I've been feeling.

So in an odd way, this whole mess has led to a spiritual reawakening for me.

And when I read the (now closed) thread, the responses from the reps. of the MI had that same dark feeling. I look through Peterson's writings and I see sharp criticism when warranted, but not the arch-villian caricature that comes from his detractors. The MI representatives, however, have convinced me by their behavior that I want nothing to do with their current regime.

1) Dan Peterson did not commission an article to be written about you. He didn't ask for one. He did not seek one out. He simply happened to be the editor of the Review at the time that the article was submitted. That is the truth. You have repeatedly and publicly maligned him on this issue.

This times a thousand. When I listened to Dehlin's interview, I felt like he's being honest about his journey and his feelings, but I also think it's absolutely wrong to say "Dan Peterson commissioned a hit piece" (while maybe that's what he thought was going on at the time, I certainly haven't seen evidence to support it). Especially when said "hit piece" apparently isn't available (and since it was never finished, we'll never know what it would have been), nor wasn't "commissioned" by Peterson. It all looks to me like a lot of people with axes to grind decided (based on rumor and partial information) to go after people they had grievances against. Honest apologetics appears to have been one casualty.

This whole thing has certainly left me with a negative opinion of both MI and Dehlin.

[emarkp]

(Wow, I joined in 2003? I have zero memory of that. It's sad getting old.)

[Louis Midgley]

Problem is there was a hit piece.

There certainly is an essay by Greg Smith on the general topic of the kinds of operations that John Dehlin has been engaged in. Dehlin's endeavors provide an illustration of a larger dynamic. Various drafts of this essay have been refereed by many scholars and read by many others, including some of the brethren and perhaps some of the Brethren.

No one who has read Greg Smith's fine essay has described it as a "hit piece." Dehlin has done this in an effort to poison the well. He did this the moment he heard that there was such an essay. Among those who had not read Greg's essay was the one who violation of professional ethics leaked news of this essay to one of Dehlin's friends and hence, it seems to me, intentionally to Dehlin. Those who complain about Greg's fine essay are, as far as I know, those who have not read it. And this includes the director of the Maxwell Institute.

In addition President Cecil Samuelson's memo concerning Greg's essay, which he had not read, in no way endorsed John Dehlin. I copied the crucial language into my diary. President Samuelson said (I paraphrase, but can quote his exact words if necessary) that he does not agree with, approve, support, accept or endorse anything Dehlin has ever done or said. Then he said that he thinks that the Brethren will want to deal with the Dehlin problem in their own time and in their own way. I find nothing objectionable in either of these statements, since the Review editorial team was not trying to deal with the Dehlin problem. Greg Smith's essay is an attempt to deal with the dynamics of dissent and alienation.

I don't think that Professor Peterson found anything objectionable in President Samuelson's language. Now, if one is so inclined, that memo could be read as saying that he had been asked by someone to order us not to publish Greg's essay. But I did not read it that way, and I think reading it that way reveals an ideological agenda. I am not sure how Professor Peterson read that memo. Be that as it may, he instantly withdrew Greg Smith's paper. We were ready to publish the Review without that essay. My hunch is that all this was merely a ploy in the hope that Professor Peterson would refuse to withdraw Greg's essay. Then his refusal could then be used as an excuse to fire him as editor of the Review..It now seems clear, since Professor Peterson was soon fired anyway, and the Review cancelled. Please keep in mind that Professor Peterson was fired by email while he was conducting a tour for important donors to the university. The issue was, it seems, merely personal, while for others it was clearly ideological. People are known to dance together while they each entertain different ideas of what the dance will eventually lead to. If I am correct about this, then Dehlin was used by others for their own purposes. And the resulting publicity has ended up exposing Dehlin to much more careful scrutiny by the Brethren than would have happened otherwise, even if Greg's essay had been published.

We did not commission Greg Smith's paper. That claim is bunk.

I am sure that the Brethren were not involved in suppressing Greg Smith's essay or in the firing of Professor Peterson.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Louis Midgley]

I really want to read this infamous article. All this talk about it has me really curious.

It is a very bad idea, these days, to try to prevent anything from being published, and especially to make a huge stink about its existence.

[Louis Midgley]

Especially when said "hit piece" apparently isn't available (and since it was never finished, we'll never know what it would have been), nor wasn't "commissioned" by Peterson. It all looks to me like a lot of people with axes to grind decided (based on rumor and partial information) to go after people they had grievances against. Honest apologetics appears to have been one casualty.

This whole thing has certainly left me with a negative opinion of both MI and Dehlin.

Greg Smith's essay is finished, and has now been available to two dozen people. There are lots of rumors being spread around. President Samuelson pointed in his memo that nothing whatsoever should be done to dishonor Elder Maxwell's name. Professor Peterson and I both agree fully with this sentiment. And the the now terminated Review editorial team has been dismayed by all that nasty rumors that are flying around. We did not cause this. We were going about our business as usual. We ended up victims. I have loved my association with the Maxwell Institute and the Foundation for Ancient Studies and Mormon Studies. I have given my very best to it. It makes me sick to see Elder Maxwell's name dishonored. He was passionately devoted to our efforts to defend the faith. I have made my own view of this as clear as I possibly can in "Defending the King and His Kingdom." which can be essily accessed by going to the Interreter website. Whatever has recently happened at the Maxwell Institute may have been driven by base personal matters. But, as was demonstrated in gory detail on another thread (now closed), at least among three younger fellows, there was also a strange ideological component--some just do not want to continue doing the things that led to the Brethren bringing the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies into BYU. And the Brethren cannot possibly and clearly do not intend to micromanage BYU.

[why me]

The last few years have been dark times for my soul, struggling with a lot of frustration over policy in the church rather than doctrine or history. It had sucked most of the joy out of church for me.

Until I started diving into FAIR, etc. I saw a richness of study and apologetics there that got me excited about bits of the gospel again, in a way I hadn't felt in some time. The Dan Peterson interview with Mormon Stories in particular was a massively positive uplift. Then something really special and personal happened last week that finally broke fully through the sadness and frustration I've been feeling.

So in an odd way, this whole mess has led to a spiritual reawakening for me.

Thank you for a great post. Dan is not a demon but he is a nice guy who has helped many people, including myself. Where would I be without FAIR, its former discussion board, and now MDD. And of course without Dan? I can only guess. They all helped me (and many more) to be in the place where I am now.