Bill Hamblin Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 On Dan Peterson's Facebook page there is a discussion about the Greg Smith review of Mormon Stories that Dehlin tried to suppress. You can find the discussion here:http://www.facebook.com/daniel.peterson.3701I must admit I am very perplexed as to why John originally went to a GA attemptint to suppress and censor the article, but now insists that precisely the article he wanted suppressed must be published. If it needed suppressing then, why does it need to be released now? Perhaps he should write Bradford and the Mole and ask them to publish the article.It is truly nutty.
Nemesis Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 His next move is to say now that it's finished Greg cleaned it up so it no longer the original "hit piece" he had censored. This is just another attempt for Dehlin to manipulate the narrative, it's a win win situation for him and he knows it,. It should have been published in our hit piece section long ago.Nemesis
Daniel Peterson Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 It's absolutely predictable at this point, that, should it be published and should it turn out (contrary to predictions) not to be dripping with venom or hints of murder or whatever, critics will claim that it's been sanitized.This won't be true, but the default setting for some of them is that we're liars, so it will be True. And it will become the received wisdom and the Authorized Version. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 His next move is to say now that it's finished Greg cleaned it up so it no longer the original "hit piece" he had censored. This is just another attempt for Dehlin to manipulate the narrative, it's a win win situation for him and he knows it,. It should have been published in our hit piece section long ago.NemesisHe's already saying this on Dan's Facebook. It's pretty astonishing.
Nemesis Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 He's already saying this on Dan's Facebook. It's pretty astonishing.Wow who would have guessed. John has been trying to control the narrative his whole career, he's gotten good at manipulating it to meet his agenda.Nemesis
Scott Barton Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I must admit I am very perplexed as to why John originally went to a GA attemptint to suppress and censor the article, but now insists that precisely the article he wanted suppressed must be published.I'm missing it -- where in that FB discussion is John insisting that the article be published?
emarkp Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 This is why I said in the other thread that we'll never know what the article was, because detractors will never believe the original unless it claims Dehlin murdered someone (or some other outrageous attack).Remarkable similarities to the lost 116 pages, no? Dehlin isn't playing the part of Smith in that analogy.I find it amazing how Dehlin is ascribing only the purist of motives to himself and his confederates, while asserting the worst of Peterson, Smith and Midgley. And then says other people need to be more Christlike.While Dehlin asserts he's not borne false witness, it seems to me that it's his responsibility to verify the charges before leveling them. I wonder why his anonymous source didn't simply send him the paper instead of describing it. 3
Calm Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) From the thread discussing the podcast....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.ME: Wait a second here....who is the one who worked to get the piece censored in the first place? JDI 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.ME: 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. http://www.mormondia...entry1209224932JD: 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.Me: Perhaps Brother Dehlin has forgotten that Dan was preoccupied with other somewhat more immediate things at the time (for those not familiar with the story, Dan's brother had just died a few days before and he had to deal with police over a threat of violence) 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.It is very interesting to see the narrative shifting here where Dan and all are blamed for the fact that no one has read it when it was Brother Dehlin who attempted to have it censored, which resulted in it not being read by many as he pretty much demanded.So my question is does he want it read to demonstrate his extreme claims about it are right or wrong or does he want it not read so as to protect "LDS apologetics, BYU, the church, and to both believers and disbelievers" from damage. Which is actually most important to him? Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah
Calm Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) A quote from another fb poster showing the crafting of a new narrative:Posterinstead, 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.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. Edited February 16, 2013 by calmoriah
Wiki Wonka Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 He's already saying this on Dan's Facebook. It's pretty astonishing.I've never seen a Facebook thread go to 116 posts so quickly. 1
William Schryver Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) It's absolutely predictable at this point, that, should it be published and should it turn out (contrary to predictions) not to be dripping with venom or hints of murder or whatever, critics will claim that it's been sanitized.This won't be true, but the default setting for some of them is that we're liars, so it will be True. And it will become the received wisdom and the Authorized Version.I am confident they won't claim it has been sanitized. Why? Because, first of all, it won't have been. But, most importantly, it's because, in their eyes, it will appear to be the "hit piece" it was always made out to be. Of course, when we read the thing, we don't see it that way. But I guarantee they will. It is, after all, a devastating exposé of the true nature and tactics of John Dehlin and his mormonstories franchise. Therefore I believe they will not react to it in the way normal, faithful Latter-day Saints would. Nope. In fact, I'll bet they will instantly label it the most contemptible example of FARMS-style viciousness they have ever seen, and they will then quickly exhaust the English language of its entire stock of laudatory adjectives in their attempts to shower upon Jerry Bradford the encomium they believe he deserves for having bravely stood up to the FARMS Hydra and thus prevented the publication of such a shameful specimen of ad hominem excess.Bradford Slays FARMS:Edited to moderate my degree of certainty somewhat. Edited February 16, 2013 by William Schryver 1
William Schryver Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I wonder why his anonymous source didn't simply send him the paper instead of describing it.Probably because his "anonymous source" did not have the paper, had never read it, and was only reporting to John what he believed the nature of the article to be.
Daniel Peterson Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I agree that this is a possible outcome.I was frankly quite surprised when the person who had indirectly leaked the existence of the article to John Dehlin reacted so totally negatively to it even after I gave him a copy to read. (He had not yet seen it when he telegraphed its existence to Dehlin.) I had thought that actually reading it would allay his concerns. I realized then that, for ideological reasons, we weren't seeing the same paper, even though the words on the pages were the same. I had not previously been aware of the ideological gulf between us.So I won't be surprised at all if, even though it won't (because it never did) contain accusations of complicity in a missionary death, etc., a vocal faction in fact sees it as a hit piece. (And me and others as villains.). Edited February 16, 2013 by Daniel Peterson 3
Scott Barton Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I'm missing it -- where in that FB discussion is John insisting that the article be published? Looking for a direct quote here, if at all possible.
Calm Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I'm missing it -- where in that FB discussion is John insisting that the article be published? Looking for a direct quote here, if at all possible.See my posts above.
Calm Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Thanks, calmoriah!Glad my obsessive nature is good for something.
Calm Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I'm missing it -- where in that FB discussion is John insisting that the article be published? Looking for a direct quote here, if at all possible.It should also be noted that no where in the original email exchange did Brother Dehlin request to read the paper...at least not that I can see from the emails listed here: and here:
William Schryver Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I agree that this is a possible outcome.I was frankly quite surprised when the person who had indirectly leaked the existence of the article to John Dehlin reacted so totally negatively to it even after I gave him a copy to read. (He had not yet seen it when he telegraphed its existence to Dehlin.) I had thought that actually reading it would allay his concerns. I realized then that, for ideological reasons, we weren't seeing the same paper, even though the words on the pages were the same. I had not previously been aware of the ideological gulf between us.So I won't be surprised at all if, even though it won't (because it never did) contain accusations of complicity in a missionary death, etc., a vocal faction in fact sees it as a hit piece. (And me and others as villains.).Well, I edited my original statement above to moderate my degree of certainty concerning their likely reaction ... because you just never know for sure ... but your experience with Morgan is an excellent analogue to consider. You're absolutely right: you weren't seeing the same paper. Or, better said perhaps, you don't have the same kind of eyes with which to see. Edited February 16, 2013 by William Schryver
emarkp Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I was frankly quite surprised when the person who had indirectly leaked the existence of the article to John Dehlin reacted so totally negatively to it even after I gave him a copy to read. (He had not yet seen it when he telegraphed its existence to Dehlin.) I had thought that actually reading it would allay his concerns. I realized then that, for ideological reasons, we weren't seeing the same paper, even though the words on the pages were the same. I had not previously been aware of the ideological gulf between us.Wait, you know who talked to Dehlin? And you haven't revealed who it is? You truly are the monster you're accused of being. </sarcasm>
Bill Hamblin Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 Well, I edited my original statement above to moderate my degree of certainty concerning their likely reaction ... because you just never know for sure ... but your experience with Morgan is an excellent analogue to consider. You're absolutely right: you weren't seeing the same paper. Or, better said perhaps, you don't have the same kind of eyes with which to see.They were looking at it with "spiritual eyes." 1
nealr Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 A few comments:1. Dehlin asks to see the one his informant saw when he told him about it. Well, he has already seen that paper (because his informant hadn't seen the paper when he told him it was a "hit piece").2. He asks why Dan never sent him the paper to see it. Well, IIRC correctly, Dan was not in a position to deal with the issue, and since Dehlin had immediately sent it up to a Seventy, and was threatening to go to a Twelve, Dan wasn't given the opportunity to wait until he was in a position to address the issue and then take his own action. Furthermore, I seem to recall reading (though I might be mistaken), that at that point, Dan himself hadn't yet fully read the paper. So it would not be fair to expect Dan to forward a paper to someone when he himself had not yet read it and decided, as editor, what to do with it. For what it is worth to some of you. 1
Bill Hamblin Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Wait, you know who talked to Dehlin? And you haven't revealed who it is? You truly are the monster you're accused of being. </sarcasm>Morgan Davis, director of METI at the Maxwell Institute, is Dehlin's mole. http://maxwellinstit...ation.php?id=84Just for clarity's sake, we believe Scratch's mole is someone else, and we're confident we know who it is. Edited February 16, 2013 by Bill Hamblin
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 Morgan Davis, director of METI at the Maxwell Institute, is Dehlin's mole. http://maxwellinstit...ation.php?id=84Just for clarity's sake, we believe Scratch's mole is someone else, and we're confident we know who it is.Is Scratch's mole still at the Institute?
Bill Hamblin Posted February 16, 2013 Author Posted February 16, 2013 Is Scratch's mole still at the Institute?Yes. He is one of the Junta.
Recommended Posts