John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[Darren10]

If I cared about confusing people, I wouldn't have chosen such a ridiculous name. : )

Amen, Sister!!!

[Darren10]

I can say with absolute confidence that the Brethren haven't the faintest idea who I am. I'm sure if they did they would purge me.

Even before reading your dependent sentence, I thought, "you probably like it that way". And if you were purged by the Brethren I'm sure John Dehlin would take you into his loving and caring arms.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Darren10

[juliann]

Well, like I just said over on MDB, most of the complaints about FAIR's tone actually seem to be related to message board postings rather than to things that FAIR has written or said to individuals. The problem with that is that FAIR hasn't sponsored a message board for about six years now, but everyone still thinks that we do.

These are people that spend their days and nights reading this board and then go over there to discuss the details. They know the difference.

I hope that Dehlin is in contact with you and providing specific examples of the things he complains about. He seems to have disappeared when we took him up on his offer to help. That is rather disappointing.

[Daniel Peterson]

Ah, thanks, Calmoriah. I just read through that entire thread. I remember it....I even commented at the end. There was not much "there" there, was there? A few little items, but not really much of substance, considering all the fuss.

Indeed. There doesn't seem to be quite enough to justify my Malevolent Stalker's references to me as, among many other similarly kind descriptions, "a human dung heap" (15 February 2011), "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced" (13 February 2011), "a deeply dishonest individual . . . very, very sick indeed" (17 June 2007), "a dishonest (and quite pathologically sick) individual . . . virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns" (17 June 2007).

(My thanks to Simon Belmont for having culled those four illustrative examples from among the hundreds of comparable descriptions of me that have issued from the Stalker over the course of his now more than six years of systematically defaming me.)

.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Calm]

I hope that Dehlin is in contact with you and providing specific examples of the things he complains about. He seems to have disappeared when we took him up on his offer to help. That is rather disappointing.

Especially considering his enormous pool of sources of those who have expressed dissatisfaction with FAIR. If anyone can find something wrong, it should be him.

[Bill Hamblin]

Indeed. There doesn't seem to be quite enough to justify my Malevolent Stalker's references to me as, among many other similarly kind descriptions, "a human dung heap" (15 February 2011), "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced" (13 February 2011), "a deeply dishonest individual . . . very, very sick indeed" (17 June 2007), "a dishonest (and quite pathologically sick) individual . . . virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns" (17 June 2007).

And those are the positive comments!

[why me]

Indeed. There doesn't seem to be quite enough to justify my Malevolent Stalker's references to me as, among many other similarly kind descriptions, "a human dung heap" (15 February 2011), "one of the most evil and degenerate people that the Church has ever produced" (13 February 2011), "a deeply dishonest individual . . . very, very sick indeed" (17 June 2007), "a dishonest (and quite pathologically sick) individual . . . virtually addicted to lying and engaging in smear campaigns" (17 June 2007).

Okay, Dan, now we have to have this out. For years now, I have told you to ignore these posters. They feed on your emotional state that you show on the boards about their name calling. If ignored, they just may go away into oblivion. Now, of course, this may take awhile but I do believe that they do get a thrill on your emotional hill.

Board nanny violation

[Calm]

If ignored, they just may go away into oblivion.

Very unlikely. Reinforcement can be received even through imagined interactions. That is a characteristic of stalkers...they create a fantasy of a relationship through things that actually have little to do with their fantasy, even a look in their direction or a word that they interpret as a code.

Not saying that anyone on the other board is that extreme kind of stalker, but with the wide range of topics Dan discusses I have no doubt that at sometime someone there will assume he is talking about them and start the whole thing going again.

Personally I think he should ignore as much as possible those kinds of critics for his own personal benefit, but I can understand when comments cross into areas dealing with his professional reputation among other things, he feels the need to speak up to set the record straight. It is way too easy for people to accept a false story as truth and it can end up spread wide and far.

Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay, Dan, now we have to have this out. For years now, I have told you to ignore these posters. They feed on your emotional state that you show on the boards about their name calling. If ignored, they just may go away into oblivion. Now, of course, this may take awhile but I do believe that they do get a thrill on your emotional hill.

I left their board something like 2.5 years ago, and the posts and threads about me haven't decreased at all.

I will not, however, stand back and permit this image of me as a cruel, unscrupulous, vicious monster to go uncontradicted. If I were to do that, it would become The Truth. And it's a lie.

[Libs]

Well, like I just said over on MDB, most of the complaints about FAIR's tone actually seem to be related to message board postings rather than to things that FAIR has written or said to individuals. The problem with that is that FAIR hasn't sponsored a message board for about six years now, but everyone still thinks that we do. I've always been of the opinion that message boards and apologetics don't really mix. There is too much tendency to react emotionally on a message board, and too much tendency to assign motives to new posters on the assumption that they might be trolls. Nobody is skilled enough to figure out a person's true motives on the internet. We can't even adequately express humor on the internet without the aid of smileys. That's why with "Ask the Apologist," we are required to assume that the questioner is sincere, even if they may appear not to be. Sometimes we are surprised to find that someone who appeared insincere, actually was sincere.

I prefer writing things and posting them on the Wiki, because you have a chance to remove the emotional element. An article or essay need not make assumptions about the person reading it.

WW

Yeah....I was, actually, looking for specific examples, from the people they complain the most about (Daniel Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Lou Migley). I didn't see much worth complaining about...certainly, not to the degree the complaints have been taken.

[Libs]

I left their board something like 2.5 years ago, and the posts and threads about me haven't decreased at all.

I will not, however, stand back and permit this image of me as a cruel, unscrupulous, vicious monster to go uncontradicted. If I were to do that, it would become The Truth. And it's a lie.

Dr. Peterson, I do agree that some things need to be answered...like the whole thing about MI and whether or not the Brethren were involved.

But, the other claims, regarding your character, are going to be seen as, obviously, ridiculous by anyone who knows you, even a little, or has read your articles...watched your videos, etc.

I know that must be horrible to have someone stalking you, like that, though, and constantly putting out that kind of garbage...for years, no less. But, how many people actually read that board? And, of those, how many already know those things to be lies? I was wondering if repeating it on this board, is giving it a lot more play than it would get on it's own?

[Libs]

Have to say, though, that your comments on the News board, before each new column is posted, makes me smile.

[why me]

Okay, Dan, now we have to have this out. For years now, I have told you to ignore these posters. They feed on your emotional state that you show on the boards about their name calling. If ignored, they just may go away into oblivion. Now, of course, this may take awhile but I do believe that they do get a thrill on your emotional hill.

Board nanny violation

I wasn't trying to be a nanny. But I have had this conversation with him before. I don't like the way dan is treated by the critics. But I also know that they enjoy giving him a rise and they enjoy getting an emotional response from him. But to be honest, I would have a hard time not defending myself too. They are vicious and unrelenting and certainly they are cyber bullies.

And John because of his misinformation has not helped.

Edited February 16, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

From the Facebook conversation:

John Dehlin William - Release the version my friend read, and we can all judge for ourselves if you tell the truth.

Wait a second here....who is the one who worked to get the piece censored in the first place?

[Calm]

Darren, this is the thread that you need that has the emails on it. It is easy to find by remembering the title begins with "Greg Smith...":

http://www.mormondia...l__+greg +smith

John Dehlin:

I was informed by another associate about the article on March 25th. He referred to it as a "hit piece."

The exact quote was "he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece".

http://www.mormondia...entry1209121303

For the record, I called the GA to discuss the piece AFTER gathering all the data.....so my conversation w/ the GA was based on info given to me by someone who had read the piece by that point.

But the first communication w/a GA (through email) describing it as a "potential hit piece" was taken prior to someone who had read the article having discussed the details with Brother Dehlin. It may not have been the same GA, not clear on that as Brother Dehlin refers to "the GA" in his post below referring to the first email, but if I have been following the conversation accurately over the past months I am thinking likely not.

Bill Hamblin:

You wrote the GA friend falsely characterizing the article on March 25 at which time neither the mole, nor you had read the article.

In your post this is the date on the email: March 26, 2012 12:07:10 AM EDT

John Dehlin:

My friend had told me it was a "concerted attack" on March 21, and referred to it as "an embarrassment" at that time.

How would he know if he hadn't read it?

JD:

Plus the email to the GA and DP was an inquiry as to whether the report was true...I was trying to get info.

Elder XXXXX -- Could you please let me know if this is this something that you feel is appropriate for FARMS to do? If not, is this something you might consider looking into?

I am hoping that the Maxwell Institute will not issue a hit piece on me. I would ask you both to please not allow this to happen. If such a piece is, indeed, in the works -- I would like notice so that I can contact Elder XXXXXXX as well. My guess is that he wouldn't approve of this either....but I can't say for sure.

I am wondering why Brother Dehlin would assume that the GA he sent the email to would have information about whether or not the article existed that Dan couldn't have provided. If he did not believe that, then surely simply leaving it at asking Dan for clarification was all that was necessary....and when Dan informed him it was a bad time due to the death of his father and the legal issue, simply let it go for a couple of weeks (seeking if necessary a time of publication from his source) or asking Dan when it would be alright to contact him over the situation.

If the GA was included to force Dan to respond because he assumed Dan wouldn't without being pushed and that is why Brother Dehlin states that his sole purpose was to get info....well, I could say something about using bully tactics but won't beyond using the label.

JD:

I am proud for standing up against the negative/bullying tactics of Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and the former M.I.

Who called in a GA in order to get an article about himself shut down? Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

instead, the time before the article is released will only raise more suspicion on both of you, and for me, since johns concern is warranted as the article DOES have his name in it...i would have to lay my suspicions more heavily on the persons refusing to do anything (besides argue) to back up their story.

This poster seems to ignore the point that John Dehlin attempted to get the article censored in the first place and if he was as successful at it as he apparently thinks he was, then he has only himself to blame for not seeing it. Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

JD

I was not scared to have the piece published. At all. I opposed it because I sincerely believed that in the end, things like that are damaging to LDS apologetics, BYU, the church, and to both believers and disbelievers.

If he sincerely believes that and he wants to do good by all of those now, then why is he now pushing for the piece to be published? What has changed? If the article was damaging to all of those then, surely it is just as damaging now.

JD:

You guys like to emphasize that no one has read the piece....but that's kinda your fault for not sharing it. DP could have shared it with me or the GA in question the day I emailed him and the GA inquiring about it, which could have cleared things up pretty quickly..if it wasn't a "hit piece" that is. But he didn't.

Perhaps Brother Dehlin has forgotten that Dan was preoccupied with other somewhat more immediate things at the time and likely didn't have the time or inclination to find the article (perhaps he would have even had to get it from Greg first) and send it to him.

DP:

I also don't have time for it, and I'm definitely not in the mood: My older brother, my only sibling and only remaining connection to my parents, died suddenly on Friday. I'm at Harvard to give a lecture tonight and will be in California later in the week for my brother's funeral.

Coincidentally, I had to contact the Orem police yesterday -- and not for the first time -- about threats of violence from an unhinged former Mormon in California.

[Atomic Punk]

Has anyone from the group that believes certain apologists' writings have been harmful, to those struggling, ever put up some examples of what they are talking about? I've never seen it and, if there are examples, I'd be interested in seeing them....?

An excellent question. I strongly doubt that those who have complained the loudest about FARMS/FAIR apologetics were concerned that these writings have been harmful. That's a bogus narrative, imo. What they really seem upset about is that the apologists just don't concede to their arguments that the Book of Abraham isn't true, that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and on and on. An apologist by definition defends something. They just can't seem to stomach the idea that someone could defend the church and its truth claims. They want the apologists to just shut up and concede to their ideas. Claiming that apologists do more harm than good is an attempt to shame them into silence. And it's rubbish.

[Darren10]

calmoriah #340;

Thank you. That was VERY helpful.

[Calm]

Thank you.

[cinepro]

This poster seems to ignore the point that John Dehlin attempted to get the article censored in the first place and if he was as successful at it as he apparently thinks he was, then he has only himself to blame for not seeing it.

This article is turning into the online equivalent of the Maltese Falcon.

I suspect the article will induce the same reaction as the Falcon did upon closer inspection as well.

Edited February 17, 2013 by cinepro

[BFUBFBEO'Brien]

This poster seems to ignore the point that John Dehlin attempted to get the article censored in the first place and if he was as successful at it as he apparently thinks he was, then he has only himself to blame for not seeing it.

So...John hasn't responded here for quite some time, despite direct appeals from several of us to tell FAIR how to improve and desnarkify...may we conclude that John's only problem with FAIR is its association with Dan? Or has he messaged you personally, WikiWonka?

[why me]

Listening to this podcast, I had the feeling that John was fishing for confirmations for his own lack of belief. But Ed Kimball did not seem to confirm John's hopes. But I can be mistaken about this.

[why me]

This poster seems to ignore the point that John Dehlin attempted to get the article censored in the first place and if he was as successful at it as he apparently thinks he was, then he has only himself to blame for not seeing it.

And now of course we have a problem. The article has become the missing 116 pages episode because no matter when it is published the critics will claim that the text was cleaned of the hit piece information.

[Wiki Wonka]

So...John hasn't responded here for quite some time, despite direct appeals from several of us to tell FAIR how to improve and desnarkify...may we conclude that John's only problem with FAIR is its association with Dan? Or has he messaged you personally, WikiWonka?

No, he has not. And he won't. He cannot produce any material. Dehlin's issues with FAIR appear to be its association with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Midgley, just as he stated earlier in this thread.

I was one of those at FAIR who has always granted him the benefit of the doubt. I always assumed that he was sincere. The recent Facebook meltdown has purged me of those notions.

His final parting post on Facebook was what did it for me. He talked about how "thrilled" he was to have played a small part in getting people fired from the Maxwell Institute and how happy he was that their "reputation has been significantly tarnished." He thanked Greg Smith for writing the article, claiming that it was "manna from heaven." He ended by saying that these individuals "have made Mormonism better by undermining yourselves."

This is the man who wishes to help FAIR become more Christlike in their interactions.

No thank you sir, FAIR does not require your assistance in this area.

My message board interactions have been a significant distraction and have prevented me from focusing on writing projects that are important to me (none of which have anything to do with John Dehlin). I'm taking a break from reading and responding on message boards for an indefinite length of time, so if anyone needs to send me a message, you can do so through PM.

WW

Edited February 19, 2013 by Wiki Wonka