John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[why me]

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

Just to be fair to John, we have no idea who told him about the piece. Perhaps the people who told him had described it as a 'hit piece'. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case. But we will need to wait for John to chime in.

[Calm]

Perhaps the people [person] who told him had described it as a 'hit piece'. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.

IIRC, this is what Brother Dehlin said in the email that he sent to Dan Peterson that was published on this board last year.

However, the phrasing was "I would imagine will be something of a hit piece" so assuming it was definitely a hit piece was, it would appear to me, a step Brother Dehlin took on his own.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209121303

Edited February 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

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

LoL - Ditto that, dude!!!

Edited February 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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.

Thus the true hit piece was against Daniel Peterson who, with no malice I've ever detected from him (though certainly pained by the experience), simply fogave, "forgot", and moved on with his life. He help found The Interpreter which is already making waves among LDS members curious as to scholarship reading on LDS topics. Daniel Peterson did not take to the Podcasts to cast blame or hurl accusations. I'm content to let Dr. Peterson's choices and conduct and John Dehlin's choices and conduct stand for all to see who is striving to be "Christlike". Who is, as one superb scholar once phrased, "Defending the King and His Kingdom".

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin - It's easy to attack the sample, and I am sure that our sample has a million holes.

All I'll say is....if you don't like our sample of 3,000....do you have a better one? That would be a much stronger argument than solely attacking the work others have done.

John, I know you mean well and that you often do very well indeed. I'm sympathetic to your ideals. My disagreements come down to issues of implementation in specific instances.

My issues with the sampling issue is minor compared to what I see as bigger problems related to the lack of both controls and specific examples to support blanket charges against people and organizations.

I posted on the issue of control groups last week:

The difference between a person encountering new information and concluding "I've been lied to and betrayed! The sky is falling!" and another person encountering the same information and concluding, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that before. Either my teachers did not know, or I was not paying attention, or both. I wonder where I can go to learn more?" does not appear to be addressed in John's work. That is, the data does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Why do people interpret the same information so differently? Why does the same information that causes a crisis for some, have no such effect on someone else? The cycle of disaffection narrative that John offers does not address this point. It validates one path of interpretation without exploring the existence and the underlying reasons for different interpretations. It is about passive victim-hood, not about active choices by agents.

The parable of the sower describes a situation when the same words produce vastly different yields. Of the parable, Jesus says, "Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?" I've suggested the Perry Scheme and Kuhn's model of paradigm debates as a useful guide to some of the reasons for the different responses of different people and different thinking frameworks to the same information. That is not attacking the messenger, but analyzing the information in context, and considering the thinking patterns of people as they encounter information that clashes with their preconceptions.

As N.R. Hansen says "All data is theory laden." The seed does not interpret itself. It gets processed by agents.

I invite...and even challenge....FAIR to conduct a better survey. Until they/you do....this just might be the best data "out there"...and the results are clear (to me). Apologetics often fail these people who struggle for longer than a year....and in many, many cases LDS apologetics clearly appears to accelerate the disaffection.

The parable of the Sower raises the issue of why the different experiences. Is the problem located in the seed or in the nature of the soil, and the quality of the care and nurture? If raising such questions is un-Christlike, why did Jesus insist that the parable of the sower was the key to understanding all parables?

Why do apologetics help some people? Do their experiences count or not when evaluating LDS apologetics? Why the difference in experiences? Does the seed explain everything, or does the soil and nurture matter? Think about the account in John 6. After the Bread of Life sermon, "many were offended." So can we not conclude that Jesus himself accelerated the disaffection? Jesus said offensive things. Jesus was the problem. Is that the most significant information? A conclusion upon which to rest and stop? Or does it raise more important questions? "Will ye also go away?" Jesus asked. Does Peter's answer have relevance? Thomas Kuhn observes that paradigm choice involves deciding "which paradigm is better? and which problems are more significant to have solved?"

Ya'll may not like to hear this....but the data suggest otherwise. The data also seems to indicate pretty clearly that LDS apologetics (including Peterson and Midgley) are perceived as being un-Christlike and mean-spirited in their approach. And unfortunately, perception is often reality.

Nibley's essay on "The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else" points out that seeming and being are two very different things, and that it was the sophists who decided that seeming is as close as anyone can get, who decided that seeming is enough. I have more serious complaints than the sampling limits of the survey, whose basic issues are close to the standard anti-Mormon tropes as developed by the Tanners, but with the lack specifics in making sweeping charges against LDS apologists. That is, is the perception accurate? Does it matter whether it is or not? Was Jesus being un-Christlike when he said to Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan! Thou art an offense to me. Thou savorest not the things of God but of men?" Or should we use an air-brushed, falsified picture of Jesus to define the parameters of what it means to be Christ-like? And then use a false image as a false standard?

Again..if you don't like our data....I encourage you to get better data. That's how social science works (as you know).

I've personally read all 40 volumes in the Review. (Have you?) With that data in my head and on my shelves, I think I'm in a good position to consider the validity of sweeping generalizations that offer no supporting specifics. And in the rare instance when a specific is offered, I'm in a good position to evaluate whether it is fairly representative of a specific essay, an individual's overall body of work, and of the wider group of hundreds of individuals.

For a specific case, (and as an example of the importance and difference it makes to deal with specifics), there were several respondents to Grant Palmer. Do complaints about tone in Davis Bitton or social history and cultural context in Lou Midgley apply equally and uncritically to Mark Ashurst McGee, James Allen, or Stephen Harper? Or even my review on Amazon? Does "attacking the messenger" provide a comprehensive and coherent defense of Palmer's case? Or is it just a blanket, used to cover unpleasant details? Does a specific detail like Palmer's conspicuous neglect of the first paragraph of the 1832 history in his discussion of the angelic priesthood restoration matter for overall generalizations? Or is that mistake atypical of Palmer's work, and irrelevant to, say, his using quotes from the 1923 B. H. Roberts study and not mentioning John Welch's seemingly relevant 1985 essay, "Answering B. H. Roberts' Questions?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 14, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

I was hoping there would be some feedback on Kevin's excellent post. Perhaps a little later tonight?

[rongo]

Or is that mistake atypical of Palmer's work, and irrelevant to, say, his using quotes from the 1923 B. H. Roberts study and not mentioning John Welch's seemingly relevant 1985 essay, "Answering B. H. Roberts' Questions?"

Never mind people's thoughts on the B.H. Roberts question from the 1980s or 1990s. Those who, like Palmer, gleefully hold out the issues Roberts described in his Book of Mormon studies never point out the very good responses to these issues Roberts actually wrote to William Riter (the original questioner). Including his use of the LGT . . . This letter is also included in Madsen's book, but critics (like Palmer and those who cite it to emphasize critics' issues) seem to only have read the introductory material by McMurrin and Madsen --- not the studies themselves, or what Roberts said about them.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/09/bh-roberts-no-he-did-not-lose-his.html

[Daniel Peterson]

In view of the image that others have carefully cultivated for me as a mean-spirited and unscrupulous villain, I got a kick out of an encounter early this evening:

As I walked through the BYU Bookstore, having just picked up a pair of Valentine's Day gifts for my wife, a woman caught me and gushed compliments (as well as sorrow over the recent purge at the Maxwell Institute). The part of her comments that caught my attention went something like this: "I love your wit. It's so hard to be both witty and kind, as you are."

As she said it, I imagined a number of my critics with their heads exploding from the sheer overexertion of trying to process so foreign a thought.*

The amusing thing is, however, that she captures what I've often tried to do far better than my critics have. I've frequently employed what I, at least, regard as wit -- typically, my critics won't even grant that -- in order to avoid more blunt statements of disagreement. I prefer the rapier to the meat cleaver. I could use a meat cleaver if I desired, but I don't desire it. I could be genuinely vicious, but that's not even remotely me.

It hasn't made much difference, though. During one recent twenty-four hour period, "Kishkumen," a particularly fevered critic of mine, compared my behavior to "the Inquisition" and to that of "barracudas" and "cockroaches," pronouncing me "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," a "bad man" who is guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before a Church disciplinary council and tried for my membership. His ideological Doppelgänger, my Malevolent Stalker, has pronounced me "a human dung heap" and "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced." Which has never, so far as I can tell, drawn a peep of protest from any of those on their board. Instead, it’s inspired ever more energetic demands that I stop being so mean. Today, a few of them proposed a letter-writing campaign calling for the Deseret News to stop publishing my columns and for all Church-owned venues to refuse to carry anything I write.

I was a big fan of The Twilight Zone when I was very young, and it’s nice to see that the spirit of Rod Serling still lives.

* I'll soon be accused, I'm quite confident, of sadistically fantasizing about blowing up and murdering my critics.

.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[ERayR]

In view of the image that others have carefully cultivated for me as a mean-spirited and unscrupulous villain, I got a kick out of an encounter early this evening:

As I walked through the BYU Bookstore, having just picked up a pair of Valentine's Day gifts for my wife, a woman caught me and gushed compliments (as well as sorrow over the recent purge at the Maxwell Institute). The part of her comments that caught my attention went something like this: "I love your wit. It's so hard to be both witty and kind, as you are."

As she said it, I imagined a number of my critics with their heads exploding from the sheer overexertion of trying to process so foreign a thought.*

The amusing thing is, however, that she captures what I've often tried to do far better than my critics have. I've frequently employed what I, at least, regard as wit -- typically, my critics won't even grant that -- in order to avoid more blunt statements of disagreement. I prefer the rapier to the meat cleaver. I could use a meat cleaver if I desired, but I don't desire it. I could be genuinely vicious, but that's not even remotely me.

It hasn't made much difference, though. During one recent twenty-four hour period, "Kishkumen," a particularly fevered critic of mine, compared my behavior to "the Inquisition" and to that of "barracudas" and "cockroaches," pronouncing me "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," a "bad man" who is guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before a Church disciplinary council and tried for my membership. His ideological Doppelgänger, my Malevolent Stalker, has pronounced me "a human dung heap" and "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced." Which has never, so far as I can tell, drawn a peep of protest from any of those on their board. Instead, it’s inspired ever more energetic demands that I stop being so mean. Today, a few of them proposed a letter-writing campaign calling for the Deseret News to stop publishing my columns and for all Church-owned venues to refuse to carry anything I write.

I was a big fan of The Twilight Zone when I was very young, and it’s nice to see that the spirit of Rod Serling still lives.

* I'll soon be accused, I'm quite confident, of sadistically fantasizing about blowing up and murdering my critics.

.

Isn't it nice to be loved?

[Wiki Wonka]

In view of the image that others have carefully cultivated for me as a mean-spirited and unscrupulous villain, I got a kick out of an encounter early this evening:

As I walked through the BYU Bookstore, having just picked up a pair of Valentine's Day gifts for my wife, a woman caught me and gushed compliments (as well as sorrow over the recent purge at the Maxwell Institute). The part of her comments that caught my attention went something like this: "I love your wit. It's so hard to be both witty and kind, as you are."

I just walked in the door five minutes ago from attending a wedding reception for an old family friend. I was sitting at a table with some old acquaintances from another stake that I haven't seen for several years since our stakes split years ago.

Without any prompting from me, the husband began talking to me about the Maxwell Institute. In particular, he told me, he absolutely loved the writings of Daniel C. Peterson, whom he characterized as "brilliant." He had also recently discovered an online journal called Interpreter, and he was very impressed with an article that he had read there about Alma1 and Alma2. He said that he has been a fan of FARMS/MI for years, but was wondering why they hadn't been producing anything new.

All this before I even said anything.

I filled him in. He was not aware of the events that resulted in the creation of Interpreter. He was pretty excited about it.

WW

Edited February 15, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[why me]

I was a big fan of The Twilight Zone when I was very young, and it’s nice to see that the spirit of Rod Serling still lives.

* I'll soon be accused, I'm quite confident, of sadistically fantasizing about blowing up and murdering my critics.

I also remember the good ol' days when you turned your wit onto yourself. The Krispy Kreme donuts routines were great.

Edited February 15, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

I just walked in the door five minutes ago from attending a wedding reception for an old family friend. I was sitting at a table with some old acquaintances from another stake that I haven't seen for several years since our stakes split years ago.

Without any prompting from me, the husband began talking to me about the Maxwell Institute. In particular, he told me, he absolutely loved the writings of Daniel C. Peterson, whom he characterized as "brilliant." He had also recently discovered an online journal called Interpreter, and he was very impressed with an article that he had read there about Alma1 and Alma2. He said that he has been a fan of FARMS/MI for years, but was wondering why they hadn't been producing anything new.

All this before I even said anything.

I filled him in. He was not aware of the events that resulted in the creation of Interpreter. He was pretty excited about it.

WW

Did he know you were connected with FAIR? If not, that is very amusing, still amusing even if he was.

The ward librarian following me on Sunday has been bringing in Abraham Divided for reading material when things get slow, never would have occurred to me to ask him if he knew about MI otherwise. When I told him about The Interpreter, he got real excited as well.

Bit by bit, we are taking over the world.

[Wiki Wonka]

Did he know you were connected with FAIR? If not, that is very amusing, still amusing even if he was.

The ward librarian following me on Sunday has been bringing in Abraham Divided for reading material when things get slow, never would have occurred to me to ask him if he knew about MI otherwise. When I told him about The Interpreter, he got real excited as well.

Bit by bit, we are taking over the world.

No, he had absolutely no idea I was associated with FAIR or that I knew the person he was talking about. I explained all that after he told me about DCP.

Two High Priests in my ward have copies of Interpreter Volume 1. They borrowed them from me, and then wanted to keep them after they started reading them. They insisted on reimbursing me and wanted to know if there were more volumes.

WW

Edited February 15, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Calm]

Like I said, bit by bit.

[Wiki Wonka]

Like I said, bit by bit.

The funny thing is that I wasn't expecting High Priests to be Interpreter's target demographic, yet it is the HP's that get really enthusiastic about it.

WW

[Bill Hamblin]

In view of the image that others have carefully cultivated for me as a mean-spirited and unscrupulous villain, I got a kick out of an encounter early this evening:

As I walked through the BYU Bookstore, having just picked up a pair of Valentine's Day gifts for my wife, a woman caught me and gushed compliments (as well as sorrow over the recent purge at the Maxwell Institute). The part of her comments that caught my attention went something like this: "I love your wit. It's so hard to be both witty and kind, as you are."

As she said it, I imagined a number of my critics with their heads exploding from the sheer overexertion of trying to process so foreign a thought.*

The amusing thing is, however, that she captures what I've often tried to do far better than my critics have. I've frequently employed what I, at least, regard as wit -- typically, my critics won't even grant that -- in order to avoid more blunt statements of disagreement. I prefer the rapier to the meat cleaver. I could use a meat cleaver if I desired, but I don't desire it. I could be genuinely vicious, but that's not even remotely me.

It hasn't made much difference, though. During one recent twenty-four hour period, "Kishkumen," a particularly fevered critic of mine, compared my behavior to "the Inquisition" and to that of "barracudas" and "cockroaches," pronouncing me "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," a "bad man" who is guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before a Church disciplinary council and tried for my membership. His ideological Doppelgänger, my Malevolent Stalker, has pronounced me "a human dung heap" and "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced." Which has never, so far as I can tell, drawn a peep of protest from any of those on their board. Instead, it’s inspired ever more energetic demands that I stop being so mean. Today, a few of them proposed a letter-writing campaign calling for the Deseret News to stop publishing my columns and for all Church-owned venues to refuse to carry anything I write.

I was a big fan of The Twilight Zone when I was very young, and it’s nice to see that the spirit of Rod Serling still lives.

* I'll soon be accused, I'm quite confident, of sadistically fantasizing about blowing up and murdering my critics.

.

My preferred weapon is the battle ax, double handed

[Libs]

Today, a few of them proposed a letter-writing campaign calling for theDeseret News to stop publishing my columns and for all Church-owned venues to refuse to carry anything I write.

Wow...this is crazy. I love your DN articles...and I'm not even in the church anymore. I love your style of writing and I am often inspired by it.

Really hate your politics, though.

I've read this whole thread and I still think this whole episode, regarding John Dehlin and MI and the "hit piece", etc., is a really big misunderstanding....at least, it sounds that way, to me....but, I haven't read the piece in question, so it's difficult to make a judgment about that.

But, I have read plenty of Daniel Peterson and I do not see this "viciousness" that some others seem convinced is there. I have to wonder if they really read many of your articles...

[Calm]

I have to wonder if they really read many of your articles...

It is remarkable what one can see if one expects to see it. Edited February 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Libs]

I suppose...yes.

[DeeAnn]

I think a lot of people confuse directness with meanness. Dan can be direct (and witty), but he is not malicious.

[Randall57]

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.

Seeing defenders of the faith putting themselves in the 'pig pen' and entering into childish rants with apostates is what is an ammbarassment to Elder Maxwell's name and legacy. Dr. Peterson being the chief apologist, if only in the lens of the common folk, continually put himself in a position that mirrored a negative 'word picture' of what the Institute stands for. I believe it is time that people come to the reality that under the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, and yourself, the Institute was getting a very large black eye via fourms like this. The brethren had no choice is suggesting a more conservative change of direction from the institute; retirement is not such a bad option, and may I suggest in silence?

[Daniel Peterson]

Seeing defenders of the faith putting themselves in the 'pig pen' and entering into childish rants with apostates is what is an ammbarassment to Elder Maxwell's name and legacy.

I knew Elder Maxwell, and I've come to know all or most of his family. They don't seem to share your view.

Dr. Peterson being the chief apologist, if only in the lens of the common folk, continually put himself in a position that mirrored a negative 'word picture' of what the Institute stands for.

I have almost no idea what that means.

I believe it is time that people come to the reality that under the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, and yourself, the Institute was getting a very large black eye via fourms like this. The brethren had no choice is suggesting a more conservative change of direction from the institute;

The Brethren suggested no such thing.

retirement is not such a bad option,

Professor Midgley is long since retired. Perhaps you should retire, too? It's not such a bad option.

and may I suggest in silence?

In other words, "Shut up, and let us malign you without resistance."

[Atomic Punk]

Seeing defenders of the faith putting themselves in the 'pig pen' and entering into childish rants with apostates is what is an ammbarassment to Elder Maxwell's name and legacy. Dr. Peterson being the chief apologist, if only in the lens of the common folk, continually put himself in a position that mirrored a negative 'word picture' of what the Institute stands for. I believe it is time that people come to the reality that under the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, and yourself, the Institute was getting a very large black eye via fourms like this. The brethren had no choice is suggesting a more conservative change of direction from the institute; retirement is not such a bad option, and may I suggest in silence?

Really? This has to be rehashed for the umpteenth time? The "brethren" had nothing to do with the change in direction in the NAMI. As for decending into the pig pen, I'd suggest your comment if rubbish. Responding to questions and critics is not inherently a descent into the pig pen. I've read many of the articles written by Dan Peterson, Louis Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Davis Bitten and others. Never did I read ad hominem attacks. The problem with those who disliked their responses seemed to be that they responded at all. How dare they respond!

[ERayR]

Wow...this is crazy. I love your DN articles...and I'm not even in the church anymore. I love your style of writing and I am often inspired by it.

Really hate your politics, though.

I've read this whole thread and I still think this whole episode, regarding John Dehlin and MI and the "hit piece", etc., is a really big misunderstanding....at least, it sounds that way, to me....but, I haven't read the piece in question, so it's difficult to make a judgment about that.

But, I have read plenty of Daniel Peterson and I do not see this "viciousness" that some others seem convinced is there. I have to wonder if they really read many of your articles...

It reminds me more of someone protecting their ideological territory. Of course they have read the articles.

[ERayR]

and may I suggest in silence?

Please feel free to take your own advice.