Addendum to closed thread about alleged Elder Packer request

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

So it sounds like both Greg and Dan are saying that essentially everything Midgley said in his very detailed messages was materially false, that church HQ not only didn't direct the article on Dehlin, but that church HQ never gave any directions to write any articles in defense of the church or its leaders.  So essentially isn't this akin to saying that Midgley either intentionally lied, or he completely imagined his greatly detailed recollection?  

I still maintain that people will have to decide what they believe is accurate about the comments around these events.  Did a rogue apologist have a senior moment and completely fabricate an elaborate story, or did he let the cat out the bag, or is it a combination of exaggeration on some elements of the story and disclosing facts that others didn't want disclosed.  People will have to decide what they believe.  

It is also quite possible Lou has Greg Smith mixed up with someone else and when Lou says packer called him and asked for Greg Smith to write an article he muddled Greg with another.  

Lou still has a very believable aspect of this.  He says Bradford told him “we don’t take orders from salt lake”, and it appears dan confirmed that Bradford’s agenda definitely included a desire to not be responsive to salt lake.  But again with that it’s quite interesting Dan appears to have missed the disagreement between Lou and bradford.  Including Bradford’s desire to cast off or distance the MI from Smith.  

Also I wouldn’t be surprised at all if salt lake made effort to get the MI to respond to something.  What’s disappointing is salt lake has no interest to defend themselves.  

Edited January 4, 2019 by stemelbow

[juliann]

CFR, Hope. Your two step is impressive but you do need to respond to CFRs with something other than "what?"

If you can't substantiate your nonstop assertions that the people who where there are lying, then get lost. And if you need a memory nudge, go back to my CFR request in the locked thread.

CFR with a post report to mods

[CA Steve]

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a better understanding of the multiple versions of the first vision?

🈚

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

CFR, Hope. Your two step is impressive but you do need to respond to CFRs with something other than "what?"

If you can't substantiate your nonstop assertions that the people who where there are lying, then get lost. And if you need a memory nudge, go back to my CFR request in the locked thread.

CFR with a post report to mods

I responded to Anijen's CFR by asking for clarification about what specifically he/she wants a reference for.  I also added in a quick summary of pertinent events in case Anijen wasn't up to speed.  I'm not dodging anything, and I'm sorry you think that I am.  

As for your CFRs on the other thread, I don't plan on responding to those because the thread was closed by the mods right after you asked for the CFRs and I suspect they thought the tone of the thread was going the wrong direction and I don't want to do the same with this thread.  BTW, I'm not even sure specifically what your CFRs on that thread were for anyway.  I could sense that you were upset though and I'm sorry if my opinions made you upset, I'm not trying to upset anyone.  

If you have a question based on something I posted in this thread, or you want to ask me for a reference, please let me know.  

[Calm]

What I don’t get is why anyone thinks someone who hangs out at FM or the Interpreter would need any urging to critique critics or defend leadership. 

We volunteer to do this kind of stuff, put it out ourselves. Pay for it out of our own pockets as well as giving eons of leisure hours. Why would SL have to direct us in doing what we already do for fun? (And seriousness)

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It is also quite possible Lou has Greg Smith mixed up with someone else and when Lou says packer called him and asked for Greg Smith to write an article he muddled Greg with another.  

Lou still has a very believable aspect of this.  He says Bradford told him “we don’t take orders from salt lake”, and it appears dan confirmed that Bradford’s agenda definitely included a desire to not be responsive to salt lake.  But again with that it’s quite interesting Dan appears to have missed the disagreement between Lou and bradford.  Including Bradford’s desire to cast off or distance the MI from Smith.  

Also I wouldn’t be surprised at all if salt lake made effort to get the MI to respond to something.  What’s disappointing is salt lake has no interest to defend themselves.  

Good points.  There you go using critical thinking skills again.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points.  There you go using critical thinking skills again.  

If this is what qualifies as critical thinking it is vastly overrated and overrecommended.

[Calm]

“again with that it’s quite interesting Dan appears to have missed the disagreement between Lou and bradford“

Bradford lived (lives?) across the street from Lou, iirc.  Same ward etc. They were good friends, again iirc. They probably had thousands of conversations no one else was aware of. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good points.  There you go using critical thinking skills again.  

Not really. You two just don’t seem to be processing the context of all of this. 

We have gone from Dan et al getting kicked out of MI because the brethren don’t want criticism put out to them asking for it. 

Bizarre 

[juliann]

CFR Hope. You don’t get to set the terms and your excuses are irrelevant. 

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm asking what Dan and Greg's position is saying about Midgley's comments.  What do you think they are saying about Midgley?  

Here above,  you are asking what Dan and Greg are saying.

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

...that's not what Greg and Dan are saying.  They are saying he got everything wrong, from soup to nuts...

But here above, you absolutely know what they are saying.

How are we to answer your posts if your posts always seem to move around? Hope, it seems to me, I could be wrong, but it looks to me you just want to be a thorn against Midgley, Dan, Greg, Q15, etc. Why the animosity?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm asking what Dan and Greg's position is saying about Midgley's comments.  What do you think they are saying about Midgley?  

He made a mistake. 

My guess is he got timing wrong and that led to him thinking a GA was asking for it rather than responding to the post firing draft, he talked to at least one friend who was a seventy after the firing 6 years ago, the man said some approving things, maybe passed on the draft to others. 

Eventually it got published in Interpreter. Iirc it was in Feb of the following year. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you clarify the CFR specifically?  Dan said earlier in this very thread that Greg's recollection "conforms entirely with my knowledge and experience".  You have the comments from Greg above as well. 

I do not need to clarify, their [Dan and Greg] comments, they are there for all to see. I CFR you because you said; "They [Dan and Greg] are saying he [Midgley] got everything wrong" Please show me where Dan and Greg said Midgley "got everything wrong." (emphasis mine).

Quote

I'm not sure what it is you want me to reference

Please show us where Dan and Greg said Midgley got everything wrong. Not somethings, not a few things, not a specific thing, BUT "everything."

Quote

if you've been following events, Midgley made comments about the Greg Smith essay including detail about Packer ordering its production and other details, then Greg Smith disputed his points and Midgley apologized and said that Greg was correct and that he got the facts wrong,

Of course I've been following. Above you mentioned Midgley apologized and that he [Midgley] got the facts wrong. Where does Gregg and Dan say Midgley got "everything" wrong?

Quote

I encourage you to go read their comments on Dan's Patheos Blog along with the comments here

 I have done so. I'd like to encourage you not to make up quotes, but to quote people with accuracy.

 

Quote

if you're not up to speed on the entire situation.   

I am up-to-date as much as most are on this thread.

 

Quote

I'm not attempting to disparage the church or anyone, just commenting on events and sharing my perspective.  The only really uncharitable thing I've said on either thread was in my first post where I was talking about Dan having a large ego. 

Yes you are attempting to disparage. You said Dan has a large ego. You have implied lying, either by Midgley, Dan, Greg, or the Q15. Implying someone is a liar is called disparaging.

 

Quote

I don't really even know the guy personally, and its not a nice thing to say.

Isn't it true, you do not know any of them? You yourself admits [above] that it is not a nice thing to say, saying unkind things is disparaging.

 

Quote

  Let me go on record as saying I'm sorry for saying that Dan has a huge ego

Thanks, that is better.

 

Quote

I would like to elevate the discussion and not name call, so I apologize for that statement, and I will try to do better going forward.  

good, I look forward to seeing an elevated conversation.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Anijen

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm asking what Dan and Greg's position is saying about Midgley's comments.  What do you think they are saying about Midgley?  

They are saying / implying nothing about his comments, only reporting them. You seem to be promoting an inference from their report that they are implying that he lied or confabulated, and you have to own that mind-reading exercise, not them.

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

He made a mistake. 

My guess is he got timing wrong and that led to him thinking a GA was asking for it rather than responding to the post firing draft, he talked to at least one friend who was a seventy after the firing 6 years ago, the man said some approving things, maybe passed on the draft to others. 

Eventually it got published in Interpreter. Iirc it was in Feb of the following year. 

Perhaps timing was a mistake, but he also gave other very specific details, like that Packer was involved, and Dan and Greg say Packer was not involved in this matter or in any other matter at all.  That’s too specific a claim to dismiss as a timing mistake.  Any theories as to what’s happening with that claim? 

[Robert F. Smith]

On the now closed thread, stemelbow said:

Quote

it seems odd that Midgley sometimes received these calls, but you never got any.  Perhaps he had certain connections.  I wonder if he sees his "sometimes" in getting those calls in the same range as your "exceedingly few and far between".  I think I got that he didn't want to see MI as a force for defending the Church and its leaders, but I didn't realize he seemed so adamantly opposed to responding to requests or demands from Salt Lake.  I'm sure it goes hand in hand from his perspective, but it says something that he wanted to fight against the notion of responding to requests or demands from Salt Lake.   Midgley quoting him as saying "we don't take orders from Salt Lake" seems rather informative.  He thought, as Midgley suggested, there were orders coming down from Salt Lake, at least sometimes.  he thought, it appears, in acquiescing to those requests/orders it was going to continue to steer the whole enterprise in the wrong direction.  This definitely helps explain why the drastic changes he implemented.  It's interesting there were others on board with his takeover, scheming behind the scenes.  

I was unaware that Lou Midgley had received such calls.  The only explanation I can think of for that may be that he took the place of Hugh Nibley for the Brethren.  Hugh would receive private requests from the Brethren from time to time to come up to SLC and address them privately on a particular topic.  That even included a detailed Nibley paper on LDS temple rites which the Brethren have not allowed to circulate in its original form (it had to have some portions removed for public consumption), i.e.,  Nibley put it together at their request, and only an expurgated version is available to the public.

This and the other discussions on what happened at MI in 2012 and why do make one fact very clear:  It was a terrible mistake to have made FARMS part of BYU, and those who objected were proven quite correct.  The "road to hell is lined with good intentions."

[Calm]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps timing was a mistake, but he also gave other very specific details, like that Packer was involved, and Dan and Greg say Packer was not involved in this matter or in any other matter at all.  That’s too specific a claim to dismiss as a timing mistake.  Any theories as to what’s happening with that claim? 

Didn't you read the rest of what I said?  Greg mentioned it too.  I am tired of repeating myself.  You focus on one thing and ignore the rest.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the now closed thread, stemelbow said:

I was unaware that Lou Midgley had received such calls.  The only explanation I can think of for that may be that he took the place of Hugh Nibley for the Brethren.  Hugh would receive private requests from the Brethren from time to time to come up to SLC and address them privately on a particular topic.  That even included a detailed Nibley paper on LDS temple rites which the Brethren have not allowed to circulate in its original form (it had to have some portions removed for public consumption), i.e.,  Nibley put it together at their request, and only an expurgated version is available to the public.

This and the other discussions on what happened at MI in 2012 and why do make one fact very clear:  It was a terrible mistake to have made FARMS part of BYU, and those who objected were proven quite correct.  The "road to hell is lined with good intentions."

Robert, please don't believe their interpretations of what Lou said before reading everything he said over at Sic Et Non, as well as Dan's replies here and there and Greg's comments.

Assumptions are being made and then stated as facts.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The only outcome I care about is understanding the truth as best as I can from my perspective.  

Just so I'm clear, who are the four parties telling one story, I'm thinking Dan and Greg are the directly involved ones, but who are the other two you say were indirectly privy to these events?  

Also, could you comment on what your position says about Midgley.  Are you saying that he intentionally didn't tell the truth or that he imagined his very detailed account, or something in between the two?  Can you elaborate on what your opinion is on what Midgley said?  

Juliann and myself reporting our knowledge of what was discussed at FM.  Juliann was a founding board member, I was active since 2003 and management sometime in 2012 iirc, maybe earlier.  I have said this before ( that I could confirm it had been consistently told by Dan and Greg since the beginning.  Juliann has said the same.  I am dumbfounded you are having this hard of time following the conversation.  It is starting to feel like a game.

I have elaborated  way too many times.  I am not going to repeat myself yet again. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not really. You two just don’t seem to be processing the context of all of this. 

We have gone from Dan et al getting kicked out of MI because the brethren don’t want criticism put out to them asking for it. 

Bizarre 

If you are thinking I’m one of the two you have totally flubbed my thoughts.  The claim of dan getting kicked out because the brethren don’t want criticism was never a position I’ve held.  And it was lou who said brethren have asked for it, and dan confirmed as much.  Lou claimed the brethren sometimes call him to address certain attacks.  Dan says such requests were exceedingly rare.  

So what exactly am I not processing?  

What may be confusing is the brethren are said to approve of the actions of defense in favor of “secular religious studies”.  For years, for instance, maxwells words of no uncontested slam dunks was invoked.   But in 2012 the brethren let the take over happen.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you are thinking I’m one of the two you have totally flubbed my thoughts.  The claim of dan getting kicked out because the brethren don’t want criticism was never a position I’ve held.  And it was lou who said brethren have asked for it, and dan confirmed as much.  

I am speaking generally when I am talking about the claim of him being kicked out.  That has been a consistent theme of discussion about these events in the past and it got tiring dealing with that.  Now we get this version (again not saying the first version is either you or hope) that just keeps going even when corrected by Dan and Greg, confirmed as much as Juliann and I as members of FM are aware (everything that has been said by Dan and Greg we have heard before), and Lou has admitted he was mistaked.

Dan said it was so few and far between it was more theoretical possibility, iirc.  Greg said it had never happened in his time as an editor.  Dan confirmed that.

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the now closed thread, stemelbow said:

I was unaware that Lou Midgley had received such calls.  The only explanation I can think of for that may be that he took the place of Hugh Nibley for the Brethren.  Hugh would receive private requests from the Brethren from time to time to come up to SLC and address them privately on a particular topic.  That even included a detailed Nibley paper on LDS temple rites which the Brethren have not allowed to circulate in its original form (it had to have some portions removed for public consumption), i.e.,  Nibley put it together at their request, and only an expurgated version is available to the public.

This and the other discussions on what happened at MI in 2012 and why do make one fact very clear:  It was a terrible mistake to have made FARMS part of BYU, and those who objected were proven quite correct.  The "road to hell is lined with good intentions."

Very interesting and helpful, thanks

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Very interesting and helpful, thanks

And yet, if I understood Robert correctly, what he said had nothing to do with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, but was a private thing Nibley did.

Robert has apparently no awareness that Lou ever did anything similar.

And I have never heard Lou mention he was doing something like this, though he has talked about gettogethers as friends with at least one GA (the friend Greg mentioned) (having dinner with interesting conversation kind of thing).

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am speaking generally when I am talking about the claim of him being kicked out.  That has been a consistent theme of discussion about these events in the past and it got tiring dealing with that.  Now we get this version (again not saying the first version is either you or hope) that just keeps going even when corrected by Dan and Greg, confirmed as much as Juliann and I as members of FM are aware (everything that has been said by Dan and Greg we have heard before), and Lou has admitted he was mistaked.

Dan said it was so few and far between it was more theoretical possibility, iirc.  Greg said it had never happened in his time as an editor.  Dan confirmed that.

When I get a chance I’ll have to direct you to lous additional comments after he said he muddled things together in the Greg Smith/Dehlin affair.  Sounds like you missed those.  I linked and quoted those elsewhere.  

I don’t really understand what you’re complaining about in regards to dan getting kicked out and the brethren approved.  That hasn’t really been discussed here.  You brought that up when talking to hope_for and I.  It makes no sense.  

There is obviously more to this story.  I find it all very nteresting but it feels like you are taking this as some sort of attack, getting all defensive.  I don’t have a clue why the thoughts I’ve offered are problematic. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, Calm said:

And yet, if I understood Robert correctly, what he said had nothing to do with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, but was a private thing Nibley did.

Robert has apparently no awareness that Lou ever did anything similar.

And I have never heard Lou mention he was doing something like this, though he has talked about gettogethers as friends with at least one GA (the friend Greg mentioned).

So?  Again you are getting unnecessarily defensive m.  I appreciate Roberts input and find it interesting.