Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Nomomo]

In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.

However, when he was advised not to publish the article, he complied.

Carla Ogden contacted him.

Isn't she the Senior Executive Secretary for The First Presidency? Does DCP expect us to believe she took it entirely upon her own self to advise DCP against publishing the piece? And that he has no idea if any of the brethren were involved? Yeah right! Imma buyin' me a summa that. LOL!

[_NorthboundZax]

Uh, yeah. Something is not adding up.

Sounds to me like the apostle GA phoned/emailed Gerald Bradford, who told Dr. Peterson to drop it.

[Guest]

DCP seems to be saying that the GAs actually didn't intervene at all:

I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.

It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.

But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.

I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.

I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.

(emphasis added)

So, to what extent was any GA involved in this, then? John has been saying that one or more of the GAs "agreed" that the article needed to be "scuttled," but DCP is denying that he was ever contacted any any GA. So did the GA go to Gerald Bradford or Hoskisson or someone like that instead? Or did the GA merely respond to John, who then forwarded the GA's comment to DCP? Or, was Dan just sufficiently terrified at the notion that a GA *might* get involved, so he pulled the article of his own volition?

Seems like typical DCP dissembling and distracting.

1) I don't believe that I've ever claimed that any GA has read anything. I am not privy to that information. It could be that they have, and it could be that they trusted others. What I did claim is that GAs intervened, and the publication was halted.

2) My understanding is that they communicated directly with Bradford or whomever the head of the MI is. And even if a GA communicated with a secretary who communicated with Bradford who communicated with DCP...it's all the same thing.

Please....somebody ask DP if he was planning on publishing the piece, and what stopped him from publishing it.

Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy.

[Guest]

-

[_Doctor Scratch]

Seems like typical DCP dissembling and distracting.

1) I don't believe that I've never claimed that any GA has read anything. I am not privy to that information. It could be that they have, and it could be that they trusted others. What I did claim is that GAs intervened, and the publication was halted.

2) My understanding is that they communicated directly with Bradford or whomever the head of the MI is. And even if a GA communicated with a secretary who communicated with Bradford who communicated with DCP...it's all the same thing.

Please....somebody ask DP if he was planning on publishing the piece, and what stopped him from publishing it.

Daniel Peterson seems to be a pathological deceiver. I don't know how else to explain his behavior. Crazy.

A couple of things:

1) Dan is going to go ballistic over that last remark of yours---just FYI.

2) It may be that Bradford was contacted by a General Authority, and that he was the one who was given the burden of having to tell DCP to not publish the article. This still remains the main thing missing from this story.

I do agree with you that DCP is trying to make it seem as if no General Authorities were actually involved, which does seem problematic.

But, yeah, John: welcome to the world of DCP. He's done this sort of thing many, many, many times in the past. He did it to Mike Quinn, when he tried to convince the participants on his home messageboard the Quinn had been excommunicated for "homosexual sin"; he's done this when people have pointed out that he's paid/employed to do apologetics; he did this in regards to the so-called "2nd Watson Letter." Wash, rinse, repeat.

[_Drifting]

Carla Ogden contacted him.

Isn't she the Senior Executive Secretary for The First Presidency? Does DCP expect us to believe she took it entirely upon her own self to advise DCP against publishing the piece? And that he has no idea if any of the brethren were involved? Yeah right! Imma buyin' me a summa that. LOL!

Didn't the Right Horrible Gentlemen try this tactic over the Watson Letter...?

[_Drifting]

I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.

It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.

But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.

I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.

I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.

It is interesting to note what DCP doesn't say...

He only says he hasn't been rebuked by a GA - leaving it open that he has been rebuked by someone (possibly a GA's secretary perhaps), just not a GA directly.
He only says he hasn't been ordered to stop publication by a GA - leaving it open that he has been ordered to stop publication by someone (possibly a GA's secretary perhaps), just not a GA directly.

We can safely conclude from the actions taken and from DCP's fudging of the rebuttal:
1. He has been rebuked.
2. He has been ordered to stop publication.
3. He has complied. Which tells us the instruction came from someone with authority over him.
4. It was/is a hit piece that the Church wants no association with.

[_Tim]

This is like watching the demolition of an office building. It's a very small piece of a much bigger event, but just for a moment you focus on a window on the fifth floor. It doesn't mean anything in the scope of things. But because you used to work at that window you pay extra attention to the way it falls.

[_Drifting]

This is like watching the demolition of an office building. It's a very small piece of a much bigger event, but just for a moment you focus on a window on the fifth floor. It doesn't mean anything in the scope of things. But because you used to work at that window you pay extra attention to the way it falls.

I think the difference here is that the Apostles are pushing the plunger!
They will sleep easier at night (and the Church will be a better place) once the millstone of unofficial, unauthorised Mopologetics has been consigned to being 'a little fleck of history'...

[_Kishkumen]

Isn't she the Senior Executive Secretary for The First Presidency? Does DCP expect us to believe she took it entirely upon her own self to advise DCP against publishing the piece? And that he has no idea if any of the brethren were involved? Yeah right! Imma buyin' me a summa that. LOL!

Didn't the Right Horrible Gentlemen try this tactic over the Watson Letter...?

Guys, I was joking in reference to that incident.

Just thought you should know, and sorry for causing confusion.