It Is Not Personal

[Storm Rider]

I guess is comes back to the worthless cur that inappropriately "shared" the document with the exmormon site. In all of this debacle, this is the one twit that needs to be identified and by a standing condemnation of every person who worked at MI swiftly shown the door. I think more highly of the lowest carbuncle on a dead man's backside than I do this sorry excuse for a human being. Ok,ok, I will tell you how I really feel in just a moment. This caliber of person is just so repugnant to me.

[why me]

I guess is comes back to the worthless cur that inappropriately "shared" the document with the exmormon site. In all of this debacle, this is the one twit that needs to be identified and by a standing condemnation of every person who worked at MI swiftly shown the door. I think more highly of the lowest carbuncle on a dead man's backside than I do this sorry excuse for a human being. Ok,ok, I will tell you how I really feel in just a moment. This caliber of person is just so repugnant to me.

I think that it is surprising that no one at MI knows exactly who the mole is. I thought that the mole was all made up because I always felt that the mole would be discovered if he or she existed. The institute is not that big to hide a mole who was dishing information to his handler as often as this mole was.

[awyatt]

Thanks, Calmoriah.....it's not exactly what I had in mind. I agree that John didn't give very much in the way of examples of what it was he was talking about....but, I think this article (and any other similar articles, where a person's motives and character are questioned) is probably exactly what he was talking about. I'm not sure how common that was, as I didn't read "everything" from FAIR and MI. It sounds like the poster Wiki(something) agreed that there were areas where they could do better and he was very open to correcting some of those areas.

The point is that if it *is* common, then someone should be able to point it out. John was a member of FAIR for a short time. FAIR members appeared on his podcasts from early on. (Including John Lynch, Greg Kearny, Dan Peterson, and Brant Gardner. There may be others.)

The pattern perpetually goes like this:

1. John: "FAIR produces terrible material and drives people out of the Church. FAIR needs to do better and be better."

2. FAIR: "Tell us what we have produced that is incorrect, and we will fix it. Tell us what is presented poorly, and we will change it."

3. John: (No response.)

It happened here, on this very message board, about two weeks ago. Bottom line is that it is impossible to fix something that cannot be identified.

I just wonder if all of these parties are still open to the possibility of civil discussion about all of this? That would be (or could be) very productive, I would think...

See the pattern, above. The door is always open. And it would be productive, if John would do more than repeat a meme without demonstrable substance. (Interestingly, since John used to be a FAIR member, he could have done TONS to change things, from the inside, but never did. Personally, it makes me feel that he isn't *really* interested in FAIR being better, only in demonizing FAIR. That is a pity.)

Libs, if you have an "in" with John and could encourage him to point out specifically what can be fixed, FAIR would appreciate it if you would do so.

-Allen

[Louis Midgley]

I am going to start a new thread on something that Libs posted at 12:01 on 28/02/2013. Libs has asked a good question. There have been attempts to do just what he proposes. The turned out badly. Libs posted the following: " I just wonder if all of these parties are still open to the possibility of civil discussion about all of this? That would be (or could be) very productive, I would think..."

[Senator]

I guess is comes back to the worthless cur that inappropriately "shared" the document with the exmormon site. In all of this debacle, this is the one twit that needs to be identified and by a standing condemnation of every person who worked at MI swiftly shown the door. I think more highly of the lowest carbuncle on a dead man's backside than I do this sorry excuse for a human being. Ok,ok, I will tell you how I really feel in just a moment. This caliber of person is just so repugnant to me.

I'm calling you to repentence Storm Rider.

Now let me preempt the posts that are sure to follow:

Board Nanny........check

Irony alert.............check

Hypocrite alert......check

...what else did I miss?

Oh yeah, banning notice from the mods...

Edited February 28, 2013 by Senator

[ERayR]

I think that it is surprising that no one at MI knows exactly who the mole is. I thought that the mole was all made up because I always felt that the mole would be discovered if he or she existed. The institute is not that big to hide a mole who was dishing information to his handler as often as this mole was.

From what I have read I understood the mole was known but MI management seems to condone it. Am I wrong in this assumption?

[Louis Midgley]

Greg [smith] wrote an article that was perhaps going to be published by MI. An informer at MI notified a exmormon board about it and that board began to give it publicity by calling it a hit piece and attacking Dan by name. And these attacks were personal even though Dan did not write the article. John then eventually took action against the piece. The whole article was then blown out of proportion even though only a couple people actually read it.

The article, if one reads it, is a critique of Mormon Stories which John is founder and creator. And he continues to be so.

But if the article was left alone and just published, it would not have caused such a stir. Mormon Stories can be critiqued and since its founder is basically its voice and soul, he can also be critiqued for the direction of Mormon Stories. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. So, it was very personal toward Dan and MI.

And if you think about it Libs, the exmormon side were extremely hostile to Dan, MI and the article, even though the excrowd did not read the article. But Greg (more or less) got a free pass on it all.

A few tiny but perhaps important corretions to a summary that is otherwise excellent:

1. Greg Smith's essay was going to be published in the Review.

2. Morgan Davis, an employee of the Maxwell Institute with no connection at all with the Review, either inadvertently or intentionally passed on news to a supporter of Dehlin that an essay on Mormon Stories was about to be published in the Review. And this news was immediately passed on to Dehlin, who began a frantic effort to stop publication of the essay by appealing to, among others. Elder Marlin Jensen and Elder Jeffrey Holland.

3. Then BYU President Cecil Samuelson sent a memo to the director of the Maxwell Institute suggesting that Greg Smith's essay not be published be published because he thought that the Brethren would deal with the Dehlin problem in the own time and way. Professor Peterson immediately pulled Greg Smith's essay from the issue of the Review that were getting ready to publish--the one that was subsequently cancelled when Professor Peterson was fired as editor of the Review

4. The remnants of the editorial team for the cancelled Review, with a host of others joined in founding and editing Interpreter (not "Mormon Interpreter" as some with heady "intel" on a different dreadful message board has it). Greg Smith has about the same role in this new publishing venture as I do--rather minor as it turns out. And for various reasons, there were no plans to publish either of Greg Smith's essays. But that option was always open depending on various conditions which I need not specify.

5. Someone else, presumably, as Trevor Luke likes to say, in or close to the Maxwell Institute, leaked a version of Greg Smith's first essay to someone who posts up a storm on that other dreadful message board and the the shadowy Doctor Scratch started posting portions of Greg Smith's essay (with his usual rancid commentary). At that point the editors of Interpeterer had no choice but to publish publish both Greg Smith's essay on Mormon Stories, and his additional essay on the entire turmoil generated by the original leak from within the Maxwell Institute.

Now for my conclusion: if Dehlin did not want all this gossip and unseemly and disgusting speculation to have taken place, all he had to do was not make his frantic appeal to Elders Jensen and Holland in a bizarre effort to stop the publication of what he called a "hit piece" (without out having read it, and without knowing the name of the author or the essay). On 29 March in my conversation with Dehlin at that conference at UVU I asked him if he really wanted the Brethren (and not just the brethren and others working directly for them) to actually get into Greg Smith's essay, he replied that they already had. What he seems to have had in mind is that Elders Jensen and Holland had listened to him present his survey. When one aims a gun, it is wise to make sure it is not at one's own foot. But the really sad thing is that the Maxwell Institute, which I love and which I have served for 23 years got dragged through the mud as some strange part of all this utterly bizarre Affair.

[Louis Midgley]

From what I have read I understood the mole was known but MI management seems to condone it. Am I wrong in this assumption?

With others, I have had exactly the same question. But I have heard nothing about this matter from the those in charge of the Maxwell Institute. But I was merely a volunteer at the Maxwell Institute. And they have no obligation to explain anything to me or even speak to me again, if that is their pleasure. I operate, with sadness, with an old Midgley Latin motto: Resurgam, which means something like "I (or we) will rise again." And, i must add, even at my now advanced age.

[rockpond]

Our own identity is our story. What I mean by our "core narrative" begins with the story of the recovery of the Book of Mormon, and also includes the narrative (historical) content of the Book of Mormon, as well as its teachings, the subsequent restoration of priesthood keys, additional divine special revelations and so forth. We all live by stories. If and only if those stories and their moral contents become part of our own story are we more than nominal Latter-day Saints. But there is a much larger story than merely our story and its links to this larger. The recovery of the Book of Mormon is set within the network of stories and preachments found in the New Testament, which are in turn linked in specific ways to the narrative structure of he Old Testament. here we have the ground and structure of our faith, and hence our identity as Saints. But within these texts and in other ways have still another even deeper story explaining how and why we are here in what is a rather disconsolate world. We are on probation and are being tested. For what and by whom? And why are we faced with challenges to our faith? What role do these challenges have in testing and proving us? How and why are we to respond to these challenges? The answer to these kinds of questions is found within our the stories we already have. Think of war in heaven and fall into a lone and dreary world where real opposition and real temptations are present. Stories are always messy and the records of the past are partial, incomplete, and already biases in various ways. They are controversial but also powerful. Our story has it faith tends to flatten out and decay into a mere routine if we shed the the notion that they are true. And they also tend to shed their power when they are reduced to mere creedal statements. Hence we also are open to an expanding understanding of the stories that constitute the ground and content of our faith.

All of this is implicit in the faith of the Saints. Anywhere in the world we go and encounter Latter-day Saints we will share an identity based on crucial elements of what I have called our "core narrative." This will be the common language of faith that bridges cultures and languages and makes of us see ourselves as the covenant People of God. The Saints know this without it having to be taught with a flannel board or power point. We know it in the sense that we participate in it just as a fish knows the water in which it lives. We live and breath our story and stories without even being conscious of doing so. I call this participating knowledge.

If you would care to see this spelled out more carefully, have a look at the following: http://maxwellinstit...9&num=1&id=638. And have a look at the list of essay found at http://maxwellinstit...rs/?authorID=41 and look for essays dealing with remembrance. The clues to this narrative core are right there in our scriptures if we have eyes to see them. I hope this helps. You can contact me at l.midgley@comcast.net if you care to. I would very much prefer to have a conversation on why we have a form of narrative theology rather than formal or systematic or dogmatic theology than gossiping about John Dehlin. Even those deeply into these other ways of doing theology end up actually living by stories that insist on theologians and churchmen working our dogma and systems and creeds.

I hope this helps.

Dr. Midgely,

Thank you... I am glad I asked and so glad you responded. Thanks for taking the time to write that out -- I think your description is beautiful. I have long been interested in our concept of a narrative theology. I've selected several articles of yours from the links you provided and sent them to my kindle. I'll get to work studying them.

[Darren10]

Seeking Understanding #357

I'm curious for you though. Do you think it is fair in Why Me's words to say:

When someone is operating a foundation and receives a salary from that foundation that they have created, and they depend on this salary to give additional support to their family, it would stand to reason that they may wish to keep it going for that reason. It would not be fair to say that the person is operating with only altruistic reasons.

If this applies to John, why not Joseph? Again, I'm not the one saying the salary is relevant I think John's salary is quite modest and for what President Monson does, I'm sure that his is quite modest as well.

The key part of the quote of which you inquired a response from me is that said people "depend" on this salary. I don't think the Bretheren "depend" on their benefits from the Church.

[Louis Midgley]

Dr. Midgely,

Thank you... I am glad I asked and so glad you responded. Thanks for taking the time to write that out -- I think your description is beautiful. I have long been interested in our concept of a narrative theology. I've selected several articles of yours from the links you provided and sent them to my kindle. I'll get to work studying them.

I am, of course, pleased to be of assistance. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me by email. The main thrust of my work for a long time has been the absolute necessity of preserving the memory of the mighty acts of God in the hearts and minds of the Saints. The little brush fires that stir the message boards are of little or no concern to me, except when a movement seems to get a foothold that threatens the historical foundations and contents of faith. We have many very articulate and learned evangelical allies who see this clearly for their own communities of faith, which which we genuinely share much common ground. LDS fascination with C. S. Lewis is an example of this, but even more importantly, since he knows both the history of Christian theology and especially the New Testament in considerable detail, is N. T. (Tom) Wright, an evangelical Anglican, who until recently was the third highest prelate in the Church of England, and who has had a long and rich career as a biblical scholar. For example, Wright has demonstrated that Luther and Calvin got it exactly wrong when they argued that one is justified (saved) the moment one confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior. Wright has demonstrated that one must begin being a disciple of Jesus Christ by making a covenant with God, and then one must undergo a long and sometimes painful process of constant repentance, difficult purging, cleansing, and hence sanctification prior to being ultimately found guiltless and hence justified at the at the final judgment (with Jesus Christ as one's Advocate before the Father). And Wright is obsessed with the idea that the followers of Christ live by stories and not by creeds. Deeds count far more, in the end, than mere words as we seek the gifts the Lord wishes to give us.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm calling you to repentence Storm Rider.

So I take it you no longer harbor the position you did back on Dec. 24, when you said:

^{I know that the board rules don't specifically state this, but in my mind, "calling others to repentance" is in the same catagory as "proselytizing", and therefore not appropriate for a forum as this.}

But that's just me

And in a subsequent post when you took Bill Hamblin to task for calling the members of his high prests group (including himself) to repentance weekly:

I wish I could be in you HP group for the mere reason to be the one to offer objection!

I also take it that you now disagree with others on that thread who opined that no one has a right to call someone else to repentance without a specific "stewardship" or Church calling giving authorization to issue such chastening.

(I know you intended to pre-empt this post, but I couldn't resist.)

Edited February 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

I am, of course, pleased to be of assistance. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me by email. The main thrust of my work for a long time has been the absolute necessity of preserving the memory of the mighty acts of God in the hearts and minds of the Saints. The little brush fires that stir the message boards are of little or no concern to me, except when a movement seems to get a foothold that threatens the historical foundations and contents of faith. We have many very articulate and learned evangelical allies who see this clearly for their own communities of faith, which which we genuinely share much common ground. LDS fascination with C. S. Lewis is an example of this, but even more importantly, since he knows both the history of Christian theology and especially the New Testament in considerable detail, is N. T. (Tom) Wright, an evangelical Anglican, who until recently was the third highest prelate in the Church of England, and who has had a long and rich career as a biblical scholar. For example, Wright has demonstrated that Luther and Calvin got it exactly wrong when they argued that one is justified (saved) the moment one confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior. Wright has demonstrated that one must begin being a disciple of Jesus Christ by making a covenant with God, and then one must undergo a long and sometimes painful process of constant repentance, difficult purging, cleansing, and hence sanctification prior to being ultimately found guiltless and hence justified at the at the final judgment (with Jesus Christ as one's Advocate before the Father). And Wright is obsessed with the idea that the followers of Christ live by stories and not by creeds. Deeds count far more, in the end, than mere words as we seek the gifts the Lord wishes to give us.

It is tasty posts like this that make me glad that you have thought to spend at least some time on message boards of late, and grateful that you still have more formal outlets for you wisdom. Some years back you altered my perspective of the gospel by drawing a sharp distinction between theology and stories, and this helped unchain me from dogma and creedalism and opened my mind and heart to grand new vistas of understanding. And, I have tried to spread that bread you once cast upon the water.

I hope you, and others like you, understand that in spite of the cacophony of slurs frequently hurled against you, and accusations of driving people from the faith, there are people like myself who hold you in the highest regard and greatly appreciate that you have positively touched our lives and brought us closer to Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Seeking Understanding #357

The key part of the quote of which you inquired a response from me is that said people "depend" on this salary. I don't think the Bretheren "depend" on their benefits from the Church.

So people like President Packer and Hinckley who worked for the church for extended periods of their life didn't depend on the income? I think it is fair to say that John draws a modest salary from his work. I also think that John should be upfront about this (which he has). I think any further statements about the matter are in poor taste unless substantial evidence is given to support.

[Darren10]

So people like President Packer and Hinckley who worked for the church for extended periods of their life didn't depend on the income? I think it is fair to say that John draws a modest salary from his work. I also think that John should be upfront about this (which he has). I think any further statements about the matter are in poor taste unless substantial evidence is given to support.

Empoyment is one thing, founding a tax exempt organization which pays your income tax free is another. as for a modest salary, I think you're assuming this is John only income. I don't know for sure if it is or is not but if I were to get an extra 40 grand per year, I'd feel pretty comfortable paying my bills and having some cash to play with.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Darren10

[Louis Midgley]

It is tasty posts like this that make me glad that you have thought to spend at least some time on message boards of late, and grateful that you still have more formal outlets for you wisdom. Some years back you altered my perspective of the gospel by drawing a sharp distinction between theology and stories, and this helped unchain me from dogma and creedalism and opened my mind and heart to grand new vistas of understanding. And, I have tried to spread that bread you once cast upon the water.

I hope you, and others like you, understand that in spite of the cacophony of slurs frequently hurled against you, and accusations of driving people from the faith, there are people like myself who hold you in the highest regard and greatly appreciate that you have positively touched our lives and brought us closer to Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I very much appreciate your kind remarks. My wife, who is a bit curious about my new message board obsession or addiction--also read it and was pleased. My wife who knows my passions as well as anyone, perhaps even a tad bit better than those who launch slurs and insults was also pleased by you kind remarks.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Empoyment is one thing, founding a tax exempt organization which pays your income tax free is another. as for a modest salary, I think you're assuming this is John only income. I don't know for sure if it is or is not but if I were to get an extra 40 grand per year, I'd feel pretty comfortable paying my bills and having some cash to play with.

John is employed by the corporation he runs. I am fairly certain this is John's only source of income, though his wife might work. He is also going to school if you remember. I'm not sure why you think his income is tax free? I mean the organization pays no taxes, but John most certainly pays taxes on his income. If you look here http://openstoriesfoundation.org/finances/ you will find that his take home after paying for benefits and taxes was around 13k for 2012.

Anyway, I'll stop pressing the issue. If it works for you to say John has to be influenced by the money, but also say people who make similar claims about church leaders and founders is not okay, that's fine. Different people experience the world in different ways to each their own I guess. To me, both are just tasteless and splitting hairs in this manner makes my head hurt.

[Senator]

So I take it you no longer harbor the position you did back on Dec. 24, when you said:

Correct.

Ya'll convinced me.

It's kind of fun to come to learn that something you once thought to be inappropriate behavior, really isn't. Usually its the other way around.

[Scott Lloyd]

Correct.

Ya'll convinced me.

It's kind of fun to come to learn that something you once thought to be inappropriate behavior, really isn't. Usually its the other way around.

I read this earlier and replied to it.

Then, it appeared both your post and my reply had been taken down.

Did you re-post it after it had been removed?

[Senator]

I read this earlier and replied to it.

Then, it appeared both your post and my reply had been taken down.

Did you re-post it after it had been removed?

This is my third time re-posting it. It kept getting removed. I don't know what's going on. I also never saw your reply.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Senator

[Cobalt-70]

If I published an article stating I believed in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and then publicly chatted on Facebook about how I didn't really believe in the historicity, I suspect my critics might note the contradiction. Indeed they wouldn't be doing due diligence if they didn't.

And publishing such evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of your faith would be "not personal" how?

Edited February 28, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Bill Hamblin]

And publishing such evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of your faith would be "not personal" how?

It would be personal in the sense it is about my ideas. It would not be personal in the sense of insulting or ad hominem.

[wenglund]

I very much appreciate your kind remarks. My wife, who is a bit curious about my new message board obsession or addiction--also read it and was pleased. My wife who knows my passions as well as anyone, perhaps even a tad bit better than those who launch slurs and insults was also pleased by you kind remarks.

Please give you wife a big hug and kiss for all of us for her sharing you with us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It would be personal in the sense it is about my ideas. It would not be personal in the sense of insulting or ad hominem.

One can grow weary at times having to explain the seemingly obvious. I marvel at your stamina.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

It would be personal in the sense it is about my ideas. It would not be personal in the sense of insulting or ad hominem.

If the article is about your ideas, and I publish an article that questions whether you really believe the ideas expressed in your article, then it becomes personal. If I claim to be writing a review of your article, then why do I need to go to your personal Facebook page and criticize the ideas you present there, and hunt for any contradictions, unless my review is actually a review of you, as a person?