Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Kishkumen »

MsJack wrote:
the narrator wrote:Also, the reason why DCP was dismissed by email is because he skipped out on a scheduled meeting with Bradford and wouldn't return phone calls before his vacation.

This is what I heard as well.

Rather problematic for the whole "cowardly firing by e-mail" narrative.


Yes, it sounds more like Prof. P. was trying to duck out on the inevitable, only to blame Bradford for using email to catch up with him.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _MsJack »

Kevin Graham wrote:MsJack, I hope you're keeping up with this stuff. A new undated timeline of how things transpired would be great about now.

I'm not sure that another timeline would be appropriate, but I do intend to update my blog series to reflect the new information I've received. At the time I wrote it, I gave my apologist friends the benefit of the doubt that the reports about no one having read the piece were accurate.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Kishkumen »

MsJack wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:MsJack, I hope you're keeping up with this stuff. A new undated timeline of how things transpired would be great about now.

I'm not sure that another timeline would be appropriate, but I do intend to update my blog series to reflect the new information I've received. At the time I wrote it, I gave my apologist friends the benefit of the doubt that the reports about no one having read the piece were accurate.


I look forward to the next installment!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Well before we jump the gun here, how do we know that they read it? Who is your source for this?
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Droopy »

MsJack wrote:Gerald Bradford read the article in its entirety before pulling it.

The General Authority who gave the cancellation order read portions of it beforehand.

Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or misinformed.



Just one question, Jack:

CFR
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Droopy »

This is a direct cut-and-paste from your blog, Jack:

(
John Dehlin’s Role

In Q&A format, I want to clear up some of the rumors that have been swirling around John Dehlin’s role in the changes at the Maxwell Institute. While I consider myself to be on friendly terms with Dehlin who once proposed interviewing me, but it never came to pass), I do not consider myself vested in his cause or one of his defenders. I have friends who are NOMs; I have friends who are LDS apologists. I’m neutral. Like Switzerland.

Was the Maxwell Institute planning on running a critique of John Dehlin in the Mormon Studies Review?

Yes. The critique is said to have been quite lengthy and footnoted, and was authored by Gregory L. Smith. In the sole 2011 edition of the MSR, Smith published a critique of another Mormon known for her work online, Laura Compton of Mormons for Marriage. I assume this critique would have been in the same vein.


The question-and-answer goes on down the page. However, there are no quotation marks encompassing the answers. The answerer is not named. Am I to assume that this was a personal interview with John Dehlin? Or is this a fictional interview in which you question and answer for Dehlin based on other claims Dehlin has made elsewhere?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Droopy »

Is, in other words, the source for the claims about DCP and the alleged GA who allegedly read the piece and wanted it spiked at NAMI (followed by a secularist purge of its founders and resident scholars) Dehlin himself?

If so, this would mean that Loyd's and others crowing about these claims have no more basis than Dehlin's original uncorroborated, as of yet, unconfirmed assertions.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_the narrator
_Emeritus
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:07 am

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _the narrator »

Droopy wrote:Is, in other words, the source for the claims about DCP and the alleged GA who allegedly read the piece and wanted it spiked at NAMI (followed by a secularist purge of its founders and resident scholars) Dehlin himself?

If so, this would mean that Loyd's and others crowing about these claims have no more basis than Dehlin's original uncorroborated, as of yet, unconfirmed assertions.


My source is not Dehlin, who I am cordial with but whose work I don't really care for. Rather it comes from associates of the MI.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Droopy »

My source is not Dehlin, who I am cordial with but don't really care for. Rather it comes from associates of the MI.


We will see...
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Like most irrational apologists, Droopy requires a signed affidavit from any sources used by critics, but when Dan and Bill assert, with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims, then it is to be taken for granted without further question.

I always thought it was weird that Dan and Bill would assert with such certainty about what someone else didn't read. I mean how the hell would they know what they didn't read? They took advantage of the fact that these men weren't going to join the media circus and start explaining their roles to the forums. So they took advantage of everyone's ignorance and lied. This is what these guys do. We already know Dan lied about not getting paid to do apologetics, and now this. What a charlatan this guy is.
Post Reply