DiscussMormonism.com

Bill Hamblin wrote:Everyone needs to realize that Dehlin, by his own public admission, does not believe in God. He rejects Jesus and the Atonement, he believes Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of Mormon a forgery. He is, quite clearly, a MINO (Mormon in Name Only). This, of course, does not necessarily make him a bad person.

What is problematic are his claims that he is objective, unbiased, and simply wants to tell the truth. (Anyone who makes such claims should be immediately inherently suspect.) Dehlin's pretense to be a thoughtful Mormon who is simply searching for the truth and asking questions is simply preposterous. Undoubtedly it was true at one point years ago, but it is clearly no longer the case. He can, of course, believe whatever he wants to believe, and say what he wants to say. That's fine with me. But why the pretense? Why not just forthrightly and clearly say what he really believes?

But what is most disquieting is his recent attempt to suppress and censor the publication of an article that is critical of his activities. His behavior in this regard is absolutely shocking. This is, quite simply, reprehensible and utter hypocritical. I object in the strongest way possible to this type of censorship. And anti-Mormons do it all the time. Signature Books tried to sue FARMS. They did it to Schryver, and Dehlin doing it again. Why does he object to the publication of an article, even if it is fundamentally flawed or completely wrong-headed. Let it be published and respond to it. If Dehlin has any intellectual integrity, he would not engage in this type of censorship. It is both immoral, pointless, and counter-productive. After all, its going to come out on the web eventually, no doubt with a lengthy appendix explaining how Dehlin tried to censor it.

(He is also woefully ignorant on very basic issues regarding Church history and the Book of Mormon as many of his podcasts amply demonstrate--but that is a different matter.)

At any rate, I'm off to Ireland for a month. I simply want to make a strong public stand against such behavior before I go.

Daniel Peterson wrote:It remains my policy not to publicly discuss the background of editorial and personnel decisions. But I think I should say that Bill Hamblin's brief account of the immediate background of l'affaire Smith-Dehlin, above, is correct.

I say this simply because I've noticed that others elsewhere, who don't actually know the back story (and who, by their own admission, haven't read the article in question), are deriding Bill for getting it wrong. He hasn't.

Daniel Peterson wrote:If you want the full story, I'm afraid you'll have to go elsewhere. (See my brief policy statement, above.) They may well not know what they're talking about, but they can go on for twenty pages or more telling you all the details -- and, along with their narrative, you get passionate moral commentary and lots of eloquent condemnations of The Bad Guys, at no extra charge..

Daniel Peterson wrote:It remains my policy not to publicly discuss the background of editorial and personnel decisions. But I think I should say that Bill Hamblin's brief account of the immediate background of l'affaire Smith-Dehlin, above, is correct.

I say this simply because I've noticed that others elsewhere, who don't actually know the back story (and who, by their own admission, haven't read the article in question), are deriding Bill for getting it wrong. He hasn't.

Bill Hamblin wrote:The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen. And that's the nice way to put it.

Bill Hamblin wrote:The world is a strange place. Very strange. But the fact that he tried to suppress the article doesn't mean that he will succeed. I'm sure you'll all get to read it eventually, one way or another.

I've got a copy, and it's a superb piece of work. I'm tempted to post it on the internet right now ... But I have to go pack for Ireland. Erin go Braugh!

Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm certainly not going to disagree with either of Bill's posts above.

Sure would like to go to Ireland, though. Never been there, but, as it happens, I'll be dropping in very briefly in July.

Bill Hamblin wrote:
Ask him.

I didn't write it and don't have permission from the author to post it. Be patient.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Ask the folks over at the Stalker's board.

They don't actually know, but, amidst much huffing and puffing and accompanied by lots of melodramatic attitudinizing, they'll tell you.

Daniel Peterson wrote:I know you are, James, but what am I?

Neener neener neener.

And your mother wears army boots.

Etc.

Enjoy your board. Follow your bliss. Personally, I enjoy no longer posting there.

Daniel Peterson wrote:But only a few truly wretched souls are likely to be comfortable in Bedlam, and to enjoy it.

Daniel Peterson, referring to his accusations against Kishkumen wrote:He seems to spend much of his day, every day, sneering at various people and being indignant or resentful.

It seems -- and I'm being very serious -- an unpleasant way to spend one's time.


I think that my Stalker is mentally and/or emotionally ill. I can think of no other plausible explanation for his malevolent fixation on me, which is, as near as I can tell, in its seventh year. Normal people don't behave this way.

However, if the Stalker is merely a sock puppet for the Stalker's seeming "disciple," then that may all be a mere pose, adopted for who knows what reason. I know that the disciple has projected fictitious personae in the past; he frankly admitted it to me several years ago.

I doubt that it is.

I've been quite careful on my blog to identify neither the pseudonyms of the Stalker and his disciple nor even the message board on which they hold forth -- and have, obviously, said nothing at all about the disciple's real-life identity, though I know it.

Precisely.

I thought I expressed myself quite clearly.

That's been quite apparent for a long time. It's why I never really felt comfortable there; somehow, I had circumvented that part of the registration procedure.

Bob Crockett wrote: Really bad form in a number of ways, John. Too bad. I follow your activities and now it appears you're just another frothing anti I wouldn't want my kids to read. Find peace, brother.



Maybe an overstatement for which I apologize. But what person in his right mind would ever now carry on an email dialogue with John. And where are my GA pals when I need protection from the Mormons?



You need PR help. You are pissing all over the brand you have worked hard to establish. I can't speak for them but what Givens, Bushman or Gardner would now submit to an interview?

I routinely try to help clients try and squelch negative press stories about to be published. Just as there is a First Amendment right to publish them in the first place so is there a right to back channel them before they are published.

But to go public about it and post private emails is to invite the public in to your home to look at your porn stash, so to speak.

You are a public figure. Of course people will criticize what you do. I have done it. Isn't your brand and what you are trying to do greater than your need to get revenge? Just sayin.

Will Schryver, apparently immune to irony and self-reflection wrote: It's been no more than two weeks since I predicted, in a conversation with Lou, that you would eventually self-destruct. I just didn't expect it to occur this soon.

Oh, well ... as the old saw goes:

"All's well that ends well."

Brant Gardner wrote:On another board where this alleged article was first discussed, it was disclosed that I am also about to be the target of Maxwell Institute hit piece. I have less first hand knowledge of this than John claims for the article he believes is about him. I have not made any attempt to stop its publication (if it exists). I have no GA friends to whom I might appeal, but I do have a couple of men inside the Maxwell Institute whom I call friends. I haven't even asked if it is true.

Echoing John, I don't mind being criticized. Standing on what I have written, I would want such an article published.

David T wrote:What self-destructing was there? I saw an attempt to get his admittedly frustrated side of the story out.

Will, from my experience, you're definitely not one who should be throwing stones when it comes to making posts perceived as ranting on-the-offence cries of persecution.

While the attempts to stop the publication may or may not have been wise (I claim no information either way), the infighting on both sides is stupid. The comments from people on the side of Maxwell have been extremely off-putting, and give more credence to Dehlin's characterizing what is going on as a 'hit piece'. Whether or not that ends up being the case, this is the impression I'm getting.

mathilde, responding to Schryver's comment about self-destructing wrote:Given the earlier discussion about people being wolves in sheep's clothing -- here we just have plain old wolves now.

The question was asked earlier on whether anyone would listen to mormonstories and be helped to stay in the church. My answer? Much more likely than a few minutes reading the general tone here.

Buffalo wrote:This one is obviously not reprehensible (unlike Peterson/Hamblin/Schryver/Smith, Gardner is a gentleman and a scholar), but should be saved for posterity.

Brant Gardner wrote:On another board where this alleged article was first discussed, it was disclosed that I am also about to be the target of Maxwell Institute hit piece. I have less first hand knowledge of this than John claims for the article he believes is about him. I have not made any attempt to stop its publication (if it exists). I have no GA friends to whom I might appeal, but I do have a couple of men inside the Maxwell Institute whom I call friends. I haven't even asked if it is true.

Echoing John, I don't mind being criticized. Standing on what I have written, I would want such an article published.

Daniel Peterson wrote:There are, now, by my count, ten threads over the board where my Malevolent Stalker and his chief disciple run the show, devoted to The Affair of the Vicious Smear that Nobody There Has Seen. They total nearly forty pages (one of them is twenty-one pages long by itself), and they're crammed with moral indignation, with unflattering name-calling against me and my fellow villains, with descriptions of the unseen essay as "venomous," "vicious," "ad hominem," "underhanded," "sneaky," and the like.

I don't know what may or may not be going on elsewhere in the ex-Mormon demimonde -- I haven't looked, though I've been told that critics are also hyperventilating about this matter elsewhere -- and, because it's not directly related, I also haven't included in my count a two-page personal attack thread that the Stalker, apparently caught up in the sheer joy of the current feeding frenzy (this is the kind of thing he lives for), has also launched against me within the past couple of days.

In response to this joyous orgy of satisfying outrage, I've responded publicly and directly with precisely
one relatively brief blog post and with perhaps four very short posts on a thread on this board.

It has always been and it remains my policy not to talk publicly about the background of personnel and editorial decisions. And, needless to say, neither I nor any of the other members of the editorial team for the Mormon Studies Review went public with this story.

John Dehlin has now taken it upon himself to publish -- on at least two message boards of which I'm aware -- my response to him when he contacted me about the piece that he sought to suppress.

Interestingly, though, he hasn't shared his emails to me.

He first contacted me regarding this matter at roughly 10 PM on Sunday, 25 March. I was away lecturing on the east coast, was armed only with an iPhone, and was not in especially good spirits, as my only sibling, my older brother (with whom I was very close), had died unexpectedly and suddenly two days before.

Now, John Dehlin and I have never been buddies. But we've always been civil. So I was more than a little surprised when I noticed that this email hadn't been sent only or even primarily to me. Instead, it had been sent to a member of the Seventy, with an appeal for him to stop publication of what Dehlin characterized as a "hit piece" and a promise that Dehlin was prepared to go further up in the hierarchy if he didn't get what he wanted. Thereafter, it was copied to me, as well as to three influential non-BYU LDS academics (friends of mine, actually) who presumably might be able to help in squelching the unseen article, and to one other person whose name I didn't recognize.

I wasn't in the mood, it was late, I hadn't (I think) as yet read the article in question, and I didn't respond.

The next morning, at 8:42 AM, I was copied on another email from John Dehlin, which was principally sent to the same member of the Seventy and which was also copied to the same addressee list as the one from 10.5 hours earlier.

It provided the Seventy in question with five quotations culled from Dehlin's unscientific survey of disaffected Latter-day Saints, all of them highly critical of (and more or less insulting toward) me and my associates.

They were included, Dehlin explained, "to aid you in your decision-making about these issues. I hope you find them useful. If you want more examples, I'm happy to provide."

I confess that I didn't find this particularly nice. Slandering me to one of the leaders of my Church and to academic friends of mine didn't seem a particularly charitable opening gambit.

Thus, at 9:57 AM, I responded: "Speaking of hit pieces . . . ," I wrote. "Good grief."

That's it.

Dehlin responded, five minutes later, with a defense of his approach and with further harsh criticism of his own about my apologetic work.

Answering him, I sent the note that he's reproduced in his opening post, above. He responded with condolences, as shown above, accompanied by still further criticisms.

I didn't respond further.

May I just add, by way of historical parallel and contrast, that when, quite a few years ago now, I learned that Sunstone was going to run a very long essay by John-Charles Duffy about the Maxwell Institute or FARMS that would be focused to a considerable extent on me, I knew, given the venue but more especially given the author, that it would be extremely (and, from my vantage point, unfairly) critical. By the standards of my critics at the Stalker's board, who have, for days now, been fervidly denouncing an unpublished essay that none of them has ever seen as an example of horrific cruelty, injustice, and immorality,, it would certainly qualify as a "hit piece" or a "smear," though I myself wouldn't use such terms. (Ultimately, for what it's worth, it even included a cartoon comparing me to Hannibal Lecter.) I knew the then-editor of Sunstone very well, but it never occurred to me to try to block publication of the piece. Such things happen when one is engaged in controversies, and one simply takes it and moves on.


http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/05 ... s-but.html

Daniel Peterson wrote:Don't jump to conclusions, phaedrus. Remember, you don't actually know the whole story.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Incidentally, phaedrus, regarding the accuracy of my Stalker's secret informants (I went over to look at your thread there):

He sometimes gets some things right. I'm sure that he really does have people who find things for him on the web (e.g., that blog about my 1978 semester abroad in Israel of which even I wasn't aware, and the Amazon purchasing habits of my youngest son) and who keep their ears to the ground for rumors that might serve as grist for his ever-grinding mill. In fact, I even know the names of a couple of them.

When he does get things right, though, he inevitably spins them in clever but predictably hostile and often genuinely ridiculous ways (e.g., some prank that I apparently performed on a student bus in Israel thirty-four years ago and that I don't even remember, but that he's used several times in an attempt to portray me as anti-Semitic and a religious bigot).

And, not uncommonly, he's flatly and completely wrong. (But always negative. Always.)

I know for a fact that somebody out there -- two or three years ago, at least -- has been playing him like a fiddle, plying him with absurd "intel" that he greedily and uncritically laps up. I know it because the person wrote to me and told me so. Once or twice, he or she even told me in advance what s/he was going to be planting in the Stalker's mind, and then I got to read it in the Stalker's posts. I have no idea who this person is -- s/he wrote to me anonymously -- nor exactly what the point of the exercise was, or the end game. And I don't know whether it's still continuing.

But, anyway, don't believe everything the Stalker says. You'd probably have a better rate of success, in fact, if you flatly rejected all of his "intel." It's been that bogus, that consistently.

Bill Hamblin (supposedly on his way to Ireland by now) wrote:
For the purposes of full full discovery, here are two of the emails that Dehlin sent.



From: John Dehlin <johndehlin@gmail.com>
Date: March 26, 2012 12:07:10 AM EDT
To: XXXXXX
Cc: "Daniel C. Peterson" <daniel_peterson@BYU.edu>, Richard Bushman <rlb7@columbia.edu>, Terryl Givens <terryl.givens@gmail.com>, <hanshj@hotmail.com>
Subject: Potential Hit Piece from the Maxwell Institute
Elder XXXXX (cc'ing Daniel Peterson, Phil Barlow, Richard Bushman, Hans Mattsson and Terryl Givens),

I just received the following email from a friend and wanted to let you all know about it:


Quote
Hi, John. I don't want to get in the middle of any drama, and especially don't want to get any started up, but I did think you deserve a heads up, in case you are not already aware: I spoke with a friend (who also happens to be one of your Facebook Friends) who works at the Maxwell Institute today, and he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece. You may already be aware of it, and maybe aren't too concerned what a paranoid ultra-conservative apologetic group was to say anyway. My friend did say that he will be attempting to dissuade them over the next few days from putting out the piece. Hopefully he will be successful and the drama will be avoided completely.



Dr. Peterson -- Can you please confirm or deny the content of this message, and provide some detail?


Elder XXXXX -- Could you please let me know if this is this something that you feel is appropriate for FARMS to do? If not, is this something you might consider looking into?


I am hoping that the Maxwell Institute will not issue a hit piece on me. I would ask you both to please not allow this to happen. If such a piece is, indeed, in the works -- I would like notice so that I can contact Elder XXXXXXX as well. My guess is that he wouldn't approve of this either....but I can't say for sure.


If my friend is mistaken in his information -- I sincerely apologize for the error and annoyance.


Sincerely,

--
John Dehlin, M.S.
Psychology Doctoral Program
Utah State University
2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-2810
Cell Phone: (435) 227-5776

======================================

On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:43 AM, "John Dehlin" <johndehlin@gmail.com> wrote:

Elder XXXXXX and Dr. Peterson,


I'm including below just a few of the comments about LDS apologetics from our recent survey of disaffected Mormons to aid you in your decision-making about these issues. I hope you find them useful. If you want more examples, I'm happy to provide. Thanks again for reconsidering your approach. -- John

From respondent 2108: “The biggest factor was the professional apologists. I watched FARMS and FAIR apologists treat people horribly. For example, Professor Daniel C. Peterson used to lurk on the Recovery from Mormonism site so that he could snatch up quotes from the people posting there, in order to humiliate them. This, coupled with the way apologists tend to treat critics (i.e., with ad hominem attack), was the lynchpin.// I would encourage him/them to do something about the apologists. I think they are the worst aspect of the current Church.”

From respondent 1746: “On honesty, stop leaving it to the apologetics. They are terrible and are doing more damage than good to people’s testimonies with their poor answers. For example....Book of Abraham.”

From respondent 1865: “Please stop the ridiculous apologetics. Their circular reasoning and logical fallacies do more harm than good.”

From respondent 2122: “Please stop with the apologetic as well. Fair and the Maxwell Institute contributed to my leaving the church.”

From respondent 2844: “As I studied Church history and uncovered many controversial historical evidence, I would frequent LDS apologetic sites for answers (e.g. FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute), Shields, FAIR). I soon discovered those sites rarely dealt with the controversial evidences but rather often skirted or obfuscated the issue and frequently resorted to personal attacks on the individuals who were publishing historical information.”

On Mar 26, 2012, at 12:03 PM, "John Dehlin" <johndehlin@gmail.com> wrote:
(taking the others off the thread)

I'm only asking you: 1) to confirm or deny the report, and 2) if it is true, to reconsider your approach.

These quotes listed below are not "hit pieces." They are (a small sampling of the) sincere responses volunteered by survey respondents about your tactics at FARMS/the Maxwell institute. There's a difference, I think.

Please, please stop the personal public attacks of people who are struggling with legitimate issues.


I appreciate your consideration.


John

Will 'Emma Smith was a bitch' Schryver wrote:I personally find it fascinating how reflexively (and universally) John Dehlin has become the hero du jour of Inveterate Apostate Evangelists #666 (IAPE #666), the union of perpetually bitter ex-Mormons that rants, rails, and raves 24/7 in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park.

They LOVE the guy!

Of course, they always have. He's been one of their champions for years now. But now he has risen to near demigod status among those who spend a significant portion of their lives kicking against the pricks, persecuting the Saints, and fighting against God.

Do you suppose one possibly draw any meaningful conclusions from Dehlin's popularity among the anti-Mormon crowd?

Will Schryver wrote:One thing you share with those among whom your popularity has recently skyrocketed: you are a cunning propagandist who knows how to capitalize on the relative ignorance of those whose perspectives you seek to mold.

Of course, regardless of its utterly mythological status, this whole "apologetics destroyed my faith" meme has become virtually an article of faith among the ex-Mormon crowd. At the very least it has become a talking point imperative. Never mind that it is only adopted AFTER apostasy has occurred. Why is that? Quite simply because it is nothing more than a weapon in the arsenal of the apostate evangelists; a weapon designed to discredit LDS apologetics in the eyes and minds of those who simply aren't in a position to know better.

How better to prevent faith from being defended and strengthened than by disarming and destroying, if possible, those for whom that is the primary objective of their work?

You have to hand it to people like Dehlin and his ideological cohorts: they aren't nearly as dumb as the people who accept their propaganda uncritically.

Dan 'Crucified For Your Sins' Peterson wrote:I've now posted yet another blog entry on this matter:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/05 ... nd-me.html

You won't be surprised at its characteristically vicious tone, given the fact that I'm a "violent" and "cult-like" "Doberman," who, having "chosen the dark side of the force," "lusts for vicious personal attack as sport." (I've borrowed a random selection of the things posted about me within just the past few minutes in one thread about this matter on just one ex-Mormon board.)

"The apologists probably would have got away with it," says one of the participants in the thread there who, like all the others, has never seen the essay in question, "if they hadn't boasted so much before publication or attacked you so violently and disproportionately."

Perhaps it's just quibbling on my part, but how can he possibly know that the essay "attacked" John Dehlin "violently and disproportionately" given the fact that neither he nor anybody else pontificating there has ever laid eyes on it? And I'd love to have some details about our alleged "boasting" about the piece. Where did we do this? Can he supply some specifics?