Anonymous Source Confirms Hit Piece

[_Bazooka]

The Savior himself has authored many hit pieces. All one has to do is read the Bible to know this.

CFR

I'm not aware that The Savior authored any of the Bible.

[_Bazooka]

Given all the brahooha and all the accusations about the piece of work Greg Smith authored about John Dehlin.
Wouldn't it be a simple matter (were it not a hit piece) to just post it out there on an available blog etc?

That would show everybody that it's not a hit piece and never was.

Come on Greg, post it - or are you too ashamed of it?

[_Bazooka]

DCP et al seem to justify their actions and style by hiding behind the legs of Elder Maxwell.
I've heard DCP say on more than one occasion phrases along the lines that the current MI direction is kicking dirt into the face of Elder Maxwell and his desired legacy of "no more uncontested slam dunks". But that seems to be at odds with the Church's leadership philosophy. Namely that living {leadership} is more important than dead {leadership}. On that basis shouldn't DCP et al be supporting the change of direction, driven by GA leadership that is alive and well rather than a GA who has passed through the veil?

[_Kishkumen]

Unfortunately, an unknown source is still unknown. The person who is unknown will need to be known if you want to be taken seriously. Time for "deep throat" to come forward.

Why me, you are one of those people who, along with Dr. Peterson, would look at a nasty hit piece and contend that it was no such thing, so no there is no reason to try to convince you of anything.

[_The Dude]

I came across a post over there that said JD had requested Smith's paper to be published. What's up with that?

That sounds like a misrepresentation of what John said. Over the weekend there was a big blowup on Dan Peterson's Facebook page where John waded in and got into it with the apologists. On that thread he requested that he be given a copy of the paper to read, but I never saw him request that it be published. Unfortunately, now all of John's posts have been deleted from that thread. I don't know whether he deleted them himself or if Dan did.

I saw that. Hamblin kept demanding "Produce the evidence, John." For about an hour, Hamblin was posting every 5 minutes or so.

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
10 minutes ago

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
5 minutes ago

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
about 1 minute ago

[_Bazooka]

I saw that. Hamblin kept demanding "Produce the evidence, John." For about an hour, Hamblin was posting every 5 minutes or so.

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
10 minutes ago

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
5 minutes ago

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
about 1 minute ago

A tad ironic from Bill, considering the Greg Smith "<insert description> piece" has yet to see the light of day...

[_Kishkumen]

John: You pronounce me a thug, presume to judge me as "unchristlike," and boast about your (fictional) role in last summer's purge at the Maxwell Institute, your friends insult me with crude epithets (uncorrected by you) and then you say that you want "reconciliation"? I've never treated you or anybody else like this. You've actively participated in demonizing me, and, in the eyes of at least some of your followers, you've plainly succeeded. Something, indeed, to be proud of . . .

How can he seriously claim never to have treated anyone like that? Dan: Would you like us to list all the "crude epithets" and insults your friends Will, Bill and Lou have hurled at people over the years "uncorrected" by you? Sheesh, would all of you guys stop casting stones for a minute to consider the MASSIVE beams in your own eyes? You guys live in a fantasy world.

Well, as wayfarer and I have shown recently, Daniel has an interesting way of reading comments about certain of his actions, or even those of his friends, as an insult of him as a person. So, if someone were to call Lou's verbal assault on Dehlin "thuggish," Peterson might very well turn around and complain that you called him (Peterson) a thug. He has perfected the art of playing the martyr. Granted, some people do insult him pretty badly, and in a juvenile way, but there are a number of instances in which he has exaggerated or misrepresented the treatment he has received. You have to be wary.

[_robuchan]

I saw that. Hamblin kept demanding "Produce the evidence, John." For about an hour, Hamblin was posting every 5 minutes or so.

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
10 minutes ago

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
5 minutes ago

Bill Hamblin Produce the evidence, John.
about 1 minute ago

What evidence is Bill asking for? This is weird. John should have posted the link of the announcement where DCP gets fired from the MI. There's your evidence, assholes.

[_MsJack]

My understanding is that the original title was "Lying Mormon Stories that John Dehlin Tells to Me." I mean, c'mon. With a title like that, how could it be anything but a hit piece?

Where did you hear this? And Kish, would your source know anything about whether or not this really was the original title?

John: You pronounce me a thug, presume to judge me as "unchristlike," and boast about your (fictional) role in last summer's purge at the Maxwell Institute, your friends insult me with crude epithets (uncorrected by you) and then you say that you want "reconciliation"? I've never treated you or anybody else like this. You've actively participated in demonizing me, and, in the eyes of at least some of your followers, you've plainly succeeded. Something, indeed, to be proud of . . .

The bolded part (emphasis mine) made me raise my eyes as well. Dan doesn't usually trade in "crude epithets" himself, but his friends are another story, and I have never seen him speak out against or correct one of them.

(Minus the time he spoke out against Bob Crockett for denouncing William Schryver. Go figure.)

[_MsJack]

by the way, I'd like to say that while I'm disinclined to take the opinions of Hamblin, Schryver, Peterson, or Midgley seriously when they insist that the Greg Smith piece was "not a hit piece," I do take the opinion of Wiki Wonka seriously. I believe he is more even-handed about this sort of thing.

That doesn't mean that his assessment is right, as I don't believe he is above "siding with the team" on occasion. But, I am more inclined to listen when he says it wasn't a hit-piece than I am when some of the other apologists say so.

I really wish that the apologists (or one of the "leakers") would send it to a relatively neutral third-party and let him/her evaluate it and post an assessment. That no one who isn't in some way affiliated with FARMS or FAIR has seen the piece and is willing to speak out on it by name doesn't speak well for the claims about how it's just a neutral, scholarly review.