Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories

[Craig Speechly]

In an unexpected turn,  LDS apologist & current Leonard J Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University has broken the Mormon Stories boycott by appearing in a traditional lengthy M.S. podcast episode. And the world continud to turn and the sun did rise this morning. 

As someone who tries to find good in everyone and focus on common ground, I found this to be a very refreshing turn of events and hope that other believers will feel that the logjam has been broken and it is now ok to be interviewed on Mormon Stories,

It was a very faith promoting episode.  

Edited September 14, 2022 by Craig Speechly

[Judd]

What is the Mormon Stories boycott? Those two had some kind of collaboration on something previously, maybe 8 or so years ago. 

[Craig Speechly]

10 hours ago, Judd said:

What is the Mormon Stories boycott? Those two had some kind of collaboration on something previously, maybe 8 or so years ago. 

Can you name a single "believer" that has gone on Mormon Stories since Dehlin's excommunication? 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Can you name a single "believer" that has gone on Mormon Stories since Dehlin's excommunication? 

Dehlin picks and chooses what believers he want on it, so it may not be a boycott. I know at least one who he at least sort of invited quite some time ago, who accepted the invite and yet, somehow Dehlin never got around to following through with him again (the apologist had some very valid criticisms of the Coe interview).

[Judd]

11 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Can you name a single "believer" that has gone on Mormon Stories since Dehlin's excommunication? 

No, but I also couldn’t name a single “non-believer” that’s gone on Mormon Stories since his ex-communication. I don’t believe Dehlin is particularly looking for “believers” on Mormon Stories. As there’s a rather wide swath of “believers” and comparatively few (singular?) people making invitations for Mormon Stories appearances, a “boycott” may be easier to organize on one end of that equation than the other.

[Teancum]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dehlin picks and chooses what believers he want on it, so it may not be a boycott. I know at least one who he at least sort of invited quite some time ago, who accepted the invite and yet, somehow Dehlin never got around to following through with him again (the apologist had some very valid criticisms of the Coe interview).

I don't think this is entirely correct.  At least according to him he has invited a number of solid believers to be back on that have denied the request.  Some that were on before.  Givens and Bushman among them.

[The_Monk]

It's not a "boycott." It's a common-sense decision not to go on a show with a bad-faith narcissist hostile host whose only interest is encouraging dissent and controversy, because it pays his mortgage. 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 9/14/2022 at 11:16 AM, Teancum said:

I don't think this is entirely correct.  At least according to him he has invited a number of solid believers to be back on that have denied the request.  Some that were on before.  Givens and Bushman among them.

This is entirely correct.  I offered.  Time went by.  He claimed to be busy.  Not too busy, I noticed, to have several negative interviews during the period I offered.   I speculate that one reason that he did not go through with it with me is that I am neither a Big Name nor offering a notable grievance story.  One notable thing about the Givens and Bushman interviews, Dehlin often asks the same usual questions to Bushman, and asks the same things to Givens, getting the same answers, but it seems that having gotten answers from Bushman made no impression whatsovever.  It is having the Questions that he values.  I had gone to the Mormon Stories Blog after I listened to the Coe interview.  Having noticed Dehlin grousing about "drive-by" apologetics, I gave sources and references for all of my comments.  Such as Coe and Dehlin discussing the supposedly devastating to faith lack of any archeological evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads in Mesoamerica, and me pointing out that the Book of Mormon never mentions such things, or mentioning what happens when a person googles "Olmec Iron" and a few other things.  After watching accumulating negative interviews, and the uncritical swallowing of everything Coe said, and the "but, but, but" obstruction during the Brant Gardner interview, and culminating in Dan Peterson's firing, I decided I could not, in good conscience, go on Mormon Stories.  I emailed Dehlin and asked to be removed from consideration.  Some time after that, I went back to Mormon Stories websites, and looked under the Coe interview, and saw that all of my comments had been removed.  He quotes Jeremy Runnells as claiming that “I believe that members and investigators deserve all of the information on the table to be able to make a fully informed and balanced decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, time, talents, income, and lives to Mormonism.”  That is not strictly true.   Dehlin prefers to set the table and in any weighing of arguments, always wants his thumb on the scale.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 16, 2022 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This is entirely correct.  I offered.  Time went by.  He claimed to be busy.  Not too busy, I noticed, to have several negative interviews during the period I offered.   I speculate that one reason that he did not go through with it with me is that I am neither a Big Name nor offering a notable grievance story.  One notable thing about the Givens and Bushman interviews, Dehlin often asks the same usual questions to Bushman, and asks the same things to Givens, getting the same answers, but it seems that having gotten answers from Bushman made no impression whatsovever.  It is having the Questions that he values.  I had gone to the Mormon Stories Blog after I listened to the Coe interview.  Having noticed Dehlin grousing about "drive-by: apologetics, I gave sources and references for all of my comments.  Such as Coe and Dehlin discussing the supposedly devastating to faith lack of any archeological evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads in Mesoamerica, and me pointing out that the Book of Mormon never mentions such things, or mentioning what happens when a person googles "Olmec Iron" and a few other things.  After watching accumulating negative interviews, and the uncritical swallowing of everything Coe said, and the "but, but, but" obstruction during the Brant Gardner interview, and culminating in Dan Peterson's firing, I decided I could not, in good conscience, go on Mormon Stories.  I emailed Dehlin and asked to be removed from consideration.  Some time after that, I went back to Mormon Stories websites, and looked under the Coe interview, and saw that all of my comments had been removed.  He quotes Jeremy Runnells as claiming that “I believe that members and investigators deserve all of the information on the table to be able to make a fully informed and balanced decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, time, talents, income, and lives to Mormonism.”  That is not strictly true.   Dehlin prefers to set the table and in any weighing of arguments, always wants his thumb on the scale.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for the info.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think this is entirely correct.  At least according to him he has invited a number of solid believers to be back on that have denied the request.  Some that were on before.  Givens and Bushman among them.

I have no doubt some have refused once they got to know him better.

I am not saying it only goes one way.  Sorry for the misunderstanding if it looked like that.

Thank you, Kevin…always better firsthand.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Can you name a single "believer" that has gone on Mormon Stories since Dehlin's excommunication? 

Dehlin was excommunicated in early 2015.  A few "believers" have since then appeared on the podcast:

• Dan Wotherspoon has been repeatedly interviewed, in March 2015, September 2015, and April 2019.
• Greg Prince was interviewed in March 2018.
• David Ostler was interviewed in September 2019.
• Jared Hess was interviewed in March 2021.
• Rick Bennett (of "Gospel Tangents") interviewed John Dehlin in August 2022.

If there is a "boycott," I think

• A) it's not an organized thing,
• B) it's likely responsive to the considerably more strident and vitriolic tone Dehlin has adopted in recent years, and
• C) may also be responsive to Dehlin's behavior relative to Dr. Richard Bushman, who was interviewed in 2007 (well before Dehlin was excommunicated). 

Here is the sequence of events:

--1. In 2007, Dr. Bushman was interviewed by Dehlin.

--2. In June 2016, Dr. Bushman (and his wife, Claudia) spoke at a “Faith Again” fireside at the home of Elizabeth and Mark England.  Here is, I think, the most relevant portion of Dr. Bushman's remarks:

Quote

Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.

--3. On July 15, 2016 Neal Rappleye addressed Dr. Bushman's comments above, concluding:

Quote

These are relatively recent publications, so are likely close to Bushman’s current views. When used to contextualize Bushman’s recent comments, they suggest to me that Bushman does not have in mind wholesale abandonment of the core LDS narrative, including the First Vision, translation of the Book of Mormon, etc. Rather, that these narratives as told by the Church stand in need of correction. As they stand, they are not true and cannot be sustained. They need to absorb the new information and reconstruct the narrative (as is done in the MacKay and Dirkmaat volume), but they do not need to fundamentally change.

 

Understood that way, I wholeheartedly agree with Bushman (though I probably would not have said the way he did), I see progress in this regard already being made, and look forward to seeing more.

--4. On July 16, 2016 Daniel C. Peterson also posted about Dr. Bushman's comments, and included a link to Rappleye's post.  From DCP:

Quote

Has the Mormon historian Richard Bushman renounced his faith?

No, I don’t think so.  I doubt it very, very much.

Yet that’s a suggestion that’s making the rounds in certain circles.

We’re not close pals and drinking buddies, but I’ve known Richard for many years now, and the Richard that I know is a believer.

I would be enormously surprised if that has changed — and (although I think his wording was unfortunate), I don’t think that there’s really anything in his recent comments to suggest that it has.

--5. Later that day, Dr. Peterson posted a "Postscript" which included a statement directly from Dr. Bushman:

Quote

Thanks for coming to my rescue Dan.  I had begun to pick up indications of these exchanges a few days ago.  I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

If anyone has questions about what I believe, I would be happy to hear from him or her.  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

Richard

--6. On July 19, 2016, John Dehlin published this: RICHARD BUSHMAN REAFFIRMS HIS TESTIMONY OF “ANGELS, PLATES, TRANSLATIONS, REVELATIONS”

This post includes the following (regarding Dr. Bushman's recorded comments above) :

Quote

After this video was shared on Reddit and Facebook, rumor and/or speculation began to spread that Dr. Bushman did not believe in the fundamental LDS truth claims.  In response to this rumor/speculation, Dr. Bushman has asked me to share the following letter in its entirety:

July 19, 2016

In the middle of the week last week I began to receive thank you notes from people who had read a statement of mine about the Church’s historical narrative requiring reconstruction. I had no idea what was going on until Dan Peterson wrote about a “kerfuffle”—the word of choice for the occasion—on the blogs. At church on Sunday, D. Fletcher asked me, did you know you were the subject of a kerfuffle. A friend who had been mission president in Brazil sent me a link to a blog in Portugese. Eventually I learned it all began with the transcript of a comment I made at a fireside at Mark England’s house a little over a month ago and posted by John Dehlin.

Sampling a few of the comments on Dan Peterson’s blog I discovered that some people thought I had thrown in the towel and finally admitted the Church’s story of its divine origins did not hold up. Others read my words differently; I was only saying that there were many errors in the standard narrative that required correction.

The reactions should not have surprised me. People have had different takes on Rough Stone Rolling ever since it came out. Some found the information about Joseph Smith so damning his prophethood was thrown into question. Others were grateful to find a prophet who had human flaws, giving them hope they themselves could qualify for inspiration despite their human weaknesses. The same facts; opposite reactions.

The different responses mystify me. I have no idea why some people are thrown for a loop when they learn church history did not occur as they had been taught in Sunday School, while others roll with the punches. Some feel angry and betrayed; others are pleased to have a more realistic account. One theorist has postulated an “emotional over-ride” that affects how we respond to information. But the admission that we ourselves are subjective human beings whose rational mechanisms are not entirely trustworthy does not diminish our sense that we are right and our counterparts mistaken.

As it is, I still come down on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations—while others viewing the same facts are convinced they disqualify Joseph Smith entirely. A lot of pain, anger, and alienation come out of these disputes. I wish we could find ways to be more generous and understanding with one another.

Richard Bushman

--7. On July 31, 2017, Daniel Peterson posted this: Is the fundamental story of the Restoration, as the Church has taught it, false?

DCP again addressed Dr. Bushman's 2016 remarks:

Quote

It’s important to point out, though, that, as Jim Bennett has helpfully observed elsewhere, “Watching the video, the context of Bushman’s statement is that the way people have talked about the First Vision is incorrect — that the first words that were spoken to Joseph were an assurance that his sins were forgiven.  So in other words, Bushman still fully accepts the First Vision, but thinks the ‘dominant narrative’ about it is incorrect. This is a far, far cry from claiming that he rejects the entirety of the Church’s take on history, but ripping that snippet out of context gives that impression.”

Brother Bushman and I are on the same page here.  In support of that, I cite something that Richard Bushman himself said in response to an earlier iteration of the critics’ claims:

In the middle of the week last week I began to receive thank you notes from people who had read a statement of mine about the Church’s historical narrative requiring reconstruction. I had no idea what was going on until Dan Peterson wrote about a “kerfuffle”—the word of choice for the occasion—on the blogs. At church on Sunday, D. Fletcher asked me, did you know you were the subject of a kerfuffle. A friend who had been mission president in Brazil sent me a link to a blog in Portugese. Eventually I learned it all began with the transcript of a comment I made at a fireside at Mark England’s house a little over a month ago and posted by John Dehlin.

Sampling a few of the comments on Dan Peterson’s blog I discovered that some people thought I had thrown in the towel and finally admitted the Church’s story of its divine origins did not hold up. Others read my words differently; I was only saying that there were many errors in the standard narrative that required correction.

The reactions should not have surprised me. People have had different takes on Rough Stone Rolling ever since it came out. Some found the information about Joseph Smith so damning his prophethood was thrown into question. Others were grateful to find a prophet who had human flaws, giving them hope they themselves could qualify for inspiration despite their human weaknesses. The same facts; opposite reactions.

The different responses mystify me. I have no idea why some people are thrown for a loop when they learn church history did not occur as they had been taught in Sunday School, while others roll with the punches. Some feel angry and betrayed; others are pleased to have a more realistic account. One theorist has postulated an “emotional over-ride” that affects how we respond to information. But the admission that we ourselves are subjective human beings whose rational mechanisms are not entirely trustworthy does not diminish our sense that we are right and our counterparts mistaken.

As it is, I still come down on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations—while others viewing the same facts are convinced they disqualify Joseph Smith entirely. A lot of pain, anger, and alienation come out of these disputes. I wish we could find ways to be more generous and understanding with one another.

I agree completely with Dr. Bushman’s comment  above.

I firmly believe, as he does, “in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations.”

That, in fact, is precisely what I understand to be the fundamental story of the Restoration, as the Church has taught it.

I also acknowledge that some, confronted with details (and, perhaps even more so, with interpretations) of Church history with which they weren’t previously acquainted, have experienced pain, anger, and alienation.  I regret that, and I’ve devoted many, many hours to trying to help with such cases — both on an individual basis and on a larger scale — and to inoculate against such pain and loss in the future.  I continue to do so.

I have, moreover, long maintained that telling our full story, warts and all, is the best defense against such disillusionment and anguish.  I absolutely believe in honest and accurate historiography, and I absolutely believe that the claims of the Restoration can and will withstand the most serious scrutiny.  Indeed, Professor Bushman and I have had conversations on precisely that subject.

I see nothing in what Professor Bushman has said with which I disagree.

--8. In October 2019, I emailed Dr. Bushman to notify him that Kay Burningham, a former member of the Church and an attorney, had quoted Dr. Bushman in legal documents in the Gaddy lawsuit against the Church (initially sent through a common acquaintance, then forwarded directly to Dr. Bushman) :

Quote

I don't know if you are aware, but the Church has recently been named as the defendant in a federal lawsuit filed in Salt Lake by a former member of the Church (Laura Gaddy).  The attorney representing Ms. Gaddy is Kay Burningham, the author of a 2011 book, An American Fraud: One Lawyer's Case against Mormonism (in other words, she has an axe to grind with the Church).  The lawsuit is an attempt to create a class action against the Church based on a theory of "fraud," with the "fraud" being many of the foundational narrative elements taught in the Church (such as the First Vision, the translation of The Book of Mormon, and the translation of The Book of Abraham).

 

The Church retained counsel, which filed a Motion to Dismiss based primarily on the "Church Autonomy Doctrine" (also called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine).  The gist of this is that secular courts are prohibited by the First Amendment from adjudicating claims or disputes pertaining to religious doctrines and beliefs.  Ms. Burningham hopes to circumvent this by arguing that they are not challenging the Church's doctrines/beliefs, but are instead challenging as false the Church's "factual" narrative pertaining to the First Vision, etc.  

 

Yesterday Ms. Burningham filed a response to the Church's Motion to Dismiss.  She starts the motion by quoting "a prominent Columbia professor, considered the foremost scholar regarding Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith."  That scholar, the brief states, is "Richard L. Bauman," who is quoted as saying "that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative," and that "[t]he dominant narrative is not true; it can't be sustained."

 

I'm not sure how significant this is, but I thought Dr. Bushman might want to know about how his 2016 remark is being (mis)characterized in the above-referenced lawsuit.  For your convenience, I have attached the Complaint, the Church's Motion to to Dismiss, and the plaintiff's response to the Motion (in which Dr. Bushman is quoted on page 6).

Dr. Bushman responded to my email in which he expressed sentiments very similar to those conveyed to Dr. Peterson back in 2016 (see above).

Shortly thereafter Dr. Bushman copied me on correspondence to third parties in which he states

• A) that the "dominant narrative" quote has been used to imply that he has lost confidence in the basic history of the Church,
• B) that he was correcting that suggestion,
• C) that the statement does not accurately convey his belief or what he intended to say,
• D) that he meant that errors had crept into the accounting of the Church's early history and needed to be straightened out, and
• E) that the Church has "'reconstructed the narrative'" by publishing Saints.

--9. On March 23, 2020, Daniel Peterson posted this: Yet, again: Has Richard Bushman declared the “dominant narrative” of Church history “false”?

It's just a re-post of the July 31, 2017 post above, prefaced with this:

Quote

I first posted this blog entry back on 31 July 2017.  However, since a claim about Professor Richard Bushman and the alleged “falsehood” of “the dominant narrative” of Mormon history has come up yet again, I think I should probably post it yet again...

--10. On July 16, 2020, Dehlin published the following on Facebook:

Quote

For the record, I have never meant to suggest that Richard Bushman doesn't believe in Mormon church truth claims.  He clearly does at some level.

I have regularly shared this video below (and will continue to do so) because to me, it is highly significant that the church's top historian has admitted for decades, the Mormon church has taught its members a false historical narrative.

I stand by this 100%.

The Mormon church has taught its members a false historical narrative for decades, and Bushman acknowledged it.

Everything else is noise.

A "Brad Dennis" left a response to the foregoing post:

Quote

Bushman is really a different kind of believer who walks a fine line.  He knows who his audience is and knows that he has to maintain an image of a believer to reach that audience.  And at the end of the day, he has been more effective in getting his message across as a believer.  If he ever came out as a non-believer, he would suffer relentless and mob-like backlash from angry hoards of believers who would dismiss and suppress his publications and incessantly strive to tar his reputation.  His statement that the dominant church history narrative is false would have no effect whatsoever were he to identify as a non-believer.  

Dehlin responded to the above post:

Quote

Brad Dennis - Agreed.

--11. On June 21, 2021, Dehlin published the following: RICHARD BUSHMAN ADMITS MORMON LEADERS MISLED MEMBERS WITH A FALSE NARRATIVE

The post begins:

Quote

Today we honor faithful Mormon church historian Richard Bushman on his birthday.

Aside from his service as a Mormon church stake president and patriarch, Dr. Bushman is perhaps best known as the author of “Rough Stone Rolling” – a well respected but heavily apologetic biography of Mormon church founder Joseph Smith Jr.

On June 12, 2016, Richard Bushman (along with his wife Claudia) spoke at a “Faith Again” fireside at the home of Elizabeth and Mark England.  A full video recording and transcript of the event can be found below.

This event marks one of the most important Mormon church history, as Richard Bushman acknowledged (to the private audience) that Mormon church leaders have been misleading church members for generations about its troubling history.   On his birthday, we honor Dr. Bushman for his willingness to be honest about the church’s misleading of the membership for multiple generations.  This is not an easy thing to admit, even if in secret.

In the "Comments" section to the above post a "John Cannon" wrote:

Quote

The title, RICHARD BUSHMAN ADMITS MORMON LEADERS MISLED MEMBERS WITH A FALSE NARRATIVE, and statements you make in your opening paragraphs, give the impression that Bushman was saying Church leaders purposely misled members for generations with a narrative they knew was false. This is not true. A little past 00:46 he said, “As if the church authorities knew it all and they were just concealing it. There was a little bit of that. They did hide Mountain Meadows for a while. But on the whole the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history.” Perhaps you address this in your “Questions I Would Ask Richard Bushman” podcast, but don’t you see that here you are misleading your audience? Why do you do this? In the past you were quite balanced in these podcasts, but since your excommunication you seem to have lost most, if not all, of that balance. We are poorer for that.

Dehlin responded:

Quote

John Cannon – Check out the following:

– The 1912 New York Times article on the Book of Abraham mistranslation: https://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/nytimes1912papyrus.htm
– The Robert Ritner Book of Abraham Interviews: https://Mormon*******.***/podcast/robert-ritner/
– The Secret Mormon Meetings of 1922: https://Mormon*******.***/podcast/shannon-caldwell-montez-the-secret-mormon-meetings-of-1922/
– Joseph Fielding Smith’s hiding of the 1932 first vision account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Deoh20oAk
– The Story of Fawn Brodie and No Man Knows My History
– The Story of Leonard Arrington: https://Mormon*******.***/podcast/leonard-arrington/
– The Excommunication of the September Six
– The Excommunication of me, Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, etc.

Mormon Church leaders have: 1) known about the many problems with Mormon church history for over a century, 2) have intentionally misled the membership with a false narrative, and 3) have punished anyone who spoke openly about these problems – and you and Richard Bushman both know this. You are just afraid to admit it publicly.

Cannon responded:

Quote

Yes, I understand your position on the issue. I don’t believe church leaders have intentionally misled the membership, but rather did so in most cases through their own misunderstandings. But that isn’t my point. You have cherry-picked one part of the talk he gave to give the impression that Bushman believes your point 2 above, while another part of his talk makes it clear that isn’t what he believes. Don’t you see that you are being as dishonest in this as you claim church leaders have been? You believe Bushman knows your point 2 above is true while the talk he gives makes clear he doesn’t. Where is the evidence to support your speculation?

While I criticize your cherry-picking of an item in the talk, I give you credit for posting the entire video and transcription of the talk and thank you for that.

Why have you abandoned the balance you used to have in you Mormon Stories podcasts? I understand that the more prominent church members such as Bushman, Givens and others are no longer willing to appear on Mormon Stories but many of the people you have on Mormon Stories who are negative toward the church are not prominent. Why not invite regular church members who have a positive take on the church?

Dehlin did not respond.

-----------

It think Dehlin has, in the foregoing behaviors, squandered whatever good will and rapport he had with faithful Latter-day Saints.  He demonstrated a substantial willingness to distort and mischaracterize.  To paint faithful members as, in Dr. Peterson's parlance (quoting Isaiah 29:32), "offender{s} for a word."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 15, 2022 by smac97

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This is entirely correct.  I offered.  Time went by.  He claimed to be busy.  Not too busy, I noticed, to have several negative interviews during the period I offered.   I speculate that one reason that he did not go through with it with me is that I am neither a Big Name nor offering a notable grievance story.  One notable thing about the Givens and Bushman interviews, Dehlin often asks the same usual questions to Bushman, and asks the same things to Givens, getting the same answers, but it seems that having gotten answers from Bushman made no impression whatsovever.  It is having the Questions that he values.  I had gone to the Mormon Stories Blog after I listened to the Coe interview.  Having noticed Dehlin grousing about "drive-by: apologetics, I gave sources and references for all of my comments.  Such as Coe and Dehlin discussing the supposedly devastating to faith lack of any archeological evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads in Mesoamerica, and me pointing out that the Book of Mormon never mentions such things, or mentioning what happens when a person googles "Olmec Iron" and a few other things.  After watching accumulating negative interviews, and the uncritical swallowing of everything Coe said, and the "but, but, but" obstruction during the Brant Gardner interview, and culminating in Dan Peterson's firing, I decided I could not, in good conscience, go on Mormon Stories.  I emailed Dehlin and asked to be removed from consideration.  Some time after that, I went back to Mormon Stories websites, and looked under the Coe interview, and saw that all of my comments had been removed.  He quotes Jeremy Runnells as claiming that “I believe that members and investigators deserve all of the information on the table to be able to make a fully informed and balanced decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, time, talents, income, and lives to Mormonism.”  That is not strictly true.   Dehlin prefers to set the table and in any weighing of arguments, always wants his thumb on the scale.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Does your offer still stand?

[Craig Speechly]

9 hours ago, Judd said:

No, but I also couldn’t name a single “non-believer” that’s gone on Mormon Stories since his ex-communication. I don’t believe Dehlin is particularly looking for “believers” on Mormon Stories. As there’s a rather wide swath of “believers” and comparatively few (singular?) people making invitations for Mormon Stories appearances, a “boycott” may be easier to organize on one end of that equation than the other.

ActuallyI stand corrected. Both Jim Bennett & Rod Meldrum have recently been interviewed 

[Craig Speechly]

I find it interesting that posters want to debate my use of the word boycott rather than celebrating the melting of the ice pack. 
 

If the breach between believer and non can ever be bridged we will need to communicate with each other to find our common ground. 
 

After all, we’re all from the same dysfunctional family  

[Kevin Christensen]

22 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Does your offer still stand?

My refusal for Dehlin still stands.  In the meantime, Bill Reel interviewed me, as did FAIR several years ago.  And I will be setting a date for another interview from a very bright and credentialed LDS scholar in the near future.  He's doing pod cast and asked.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[Fair Dinkum]

27 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

My refusal for Dehlin still stands.  In the meantime, Bill Reel interviewed me, as did FAIR several years ago.  And I will be setting a date for another interview from a very bright and credentialed LDS scholar in the near future.  He's doing pod cast and asked.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

So you are boycotting MS. Please listen to this episode of MS. Dehlin was very respectful. You should go on the podcast. Please reconsider. 

[Tacenda]

I'm on the second episode, I like Patrick! I read "Planted" a few years ago and actually gave the book to the RS president when she told me her son was struggling after reading about the warts in the church. It was when I struggled too and she was aware. We were in the RS presidency together, and she was wonderful. 

[mfbukowski]

On 9/14/2022 at 7:27 AM, Calm said:

Dehlin picks and chooses what believers he want on it, so it may not be a boycott. I know at least one who he at least sort of invited quite some time ago, who accepted the invite and yet, somehow Dehlin never got around to following through with him again (the apologist had some very valid criticisms of the Coe interview).

I know of at least 1 other with a very similar story 

Edited September 16, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm on the second episode, I like Patrick! I read "Planted" a few years ago and actually gave the book to the RS president when she told me her son was struggling after reading about the warts in the church. It was when I struggled too and she was aware. We were in the RS presidency together, and she was wonderful. 

He's great

Go buy his books.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So you are boycotting MS. Please listen to this episode of MS. Dehlin was very respectful. You should go on the podcast. Please reconsider. 

One should consider not only what is said in a particular podcast by Dehlin, but what is said elsewhere by him at other times…such as his repeated lying about what Bushman said. And based on that, I can’t imagine that many believers would find it an attractive proposal. 

[2BizE]

In a turn of events, on episode 3 with Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories Podcast, Patrick actually interviews John Dehlin and asks him the hard questions.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

In a turn of events, on episode 3 with Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories Podcast, Patrick actually interviews John Dehlin and asks him the hard questions.

Which are?

[2BizE]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Which are?

I have only watched a few minutes of it, but one question asked was why does John Dehlin claim he has never instructed people to leave the church, when there are some audio/text of him suggesting things very close to this?

you will need to watch it. It certainly had Patrick in the drivers seat and asking the questions and doing the interview.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I have only watched a few minutes of it, but one question asked was why does John Dehlin claim he has never instructed people to leave the church, when there are some audio/text of him suggesting things very close to this?

you will need to watch it. It certainly had Patrick in the drivers seat and asking the questions and doing the interview.

I remember the question Patrick asked about the pain that the members go through just as much as the members that have a faith crisis. I see them both hurting so much. The faithful that are married in the temple and then have a spouse leave, a child that leaves and their parent imagine their dreams of seeing them marry in the temple vanish. The worrying that their grandchildren won't be raised in the church. 

And on the other end, those that suffer faith crisis have their friends/family/neighbor tell them that Satan is taken over. My sister said this to me, and has been distant for the years of my faith crisis and we are no more...but understand how sad she must feel because she and I were the only ones active and married in the temple out of 6 kids, now she's alone in that world. So on both sides, the church IMO, has divided family sadly. 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Tacenda

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember the question Patrick asked about the pain that the members go through just as much as the members that have a faith crisis. I see them both hurting so much. The faithful that are married in the temple and then have a spouse leave, a child that leaves and their parent imagine their dreams of seeing them marry in the temple vanish. The worrying that their grandchildren won't be raised in the church. 

And on the other end, those that suffer faith crisis have their friends/family/neighbor tell them that Satan is taken over. My sister said this to me, and has been distant for the years of my faith crisis and we are no more...but understand how sad she must feel because she and I were the only ones active and married in the temple out of 6 kids, now she's alone in that world. So on both sides, the church IMO, has divided family sadly. 

I don't think it is the church that divided families.   I think it is family members who divide families.  On both sides.  There are an awful lot of things that family members can be divided on, but some families do well together anyway.  And of course some families make a huge mess of it often using whatever it is as an excuse and a weapon.