DiscussMormonism.com

Our friend, Prof. P., has provided us a tidbit of interesting insight into the pulling of the Dehlin hit piece from the Mormon Studies Review:

Prof. P. wrote:I can’t help but wonder, now, whether the anonymous General Authority who apparently asked President Samuelson to tell Jerry Bradford to tell me not to publish the paper had been told that we were going to accuse John Dehlin of murder or manslaughter or something of that sort. I have no reason to believe that any General Authority has read the paper, or that President Samuelson has, and I know (because I asked him) that, at least as of three weeks ago when I last met with him, Jerry Bradford had not. I’ll probably never know. But that would help to account for a part of this rather mysterious drama.

Evidently, Prof. P. is upset because some people are claiming that Louis Midgley's accusation against John Dehlin (namely, that the latter was somehow involved in or connected to the death of one or more missionaries in his mission) at the UVU Mormon Studies gathering was included in Greg Smith's hit piece. Of course, we don't know whether it was or not, but we do know that Louis Midgley got in Dehlin's face and shouted at him this crazy accusation that could have only been generated through the kind of opposition research that would have made Lee Atwater salivate back in the day.

But Prof. P. does not mention the Midgley incident at all. Big Surprise.

Kishkumen wrote:But Prof. P. does not mention the Midgley incident at all. Big Surprise.

Bad form to mention the bad behavior of one's friends.

harmony wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:But Prof. P. does not mention the Midgley incident at all. Big Surprise.

Bad form to mention the bad behavior of one's friends.

Yes, but it is OK to depict a situation in which inexplicably all of these people spontaneously create a fanciful accusation about a murder accusation in Greg Smith's piece in order to suggest that all criticism of his and Greg Smith's activities is bizarre and unconnected with any reality.

Right?

I understand that Prof. P. feels like he is under no obligation to share the information that provides some kind of context, and thus renders intelligible, the issue he is discussing. After all, I have seen him in action for years now. He is not in the habit of treating those who disagree with him fairly.

Unless it's been removed, one of the comments under this entry mentions the Midgley incident.

I think it was dishonest to pretend he has no idea how this rumor could have possibly started.

But then again, I don't believe a word he says about anything anymore.

beastie wrote:Unless it's been removed, one of the comments under this entry mentions the Midgley incident.

I think it was dishonest to pretend he has no idea how this rumor could have possibly started.

But then again, I don't believe a word he says about anything anymore.

It's still there, beastie. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I guess Prof. P. deserves some credit for not deleting it.

Bad form for DCP to crack on a general authority like that.

Evidently, Prof. P. is upset because some people are claiming that Louis Midgley's accusation against John Dehlin (namely, that the latter was somehow involved in or connected to the death of one or more missionaries in his mission) at the UVU Mormon Studies gathering was included in Greg Smith's hit piece. Of course, we don't know whether it was or not, but we do know that Louis Midgley got in Dehlin's face and shouted at him this crazy accusation that could have only been generated through the kind of opposition research that would have made Lee Atwater salivate back in the day.

But Prof. P. does not mention the Midgley incident at all. Big Surprise.

What we "know" is the story John Dehlin has told, including the UVU story, which could be true, could be a purely subjective imposition on what actually happened from Dehlin's own highly self interested mind, or an utter fabrication.

Time will tell.

Droopy wrote:What we "know" is the story John Dehlin has told, including the UVU story, which could be true, could be a purely subjective imposition on what actually happened from Dehlin's own highly self interested mind, or an utter fabrication.

Time will tell.

Kinda like what we know about the story Joseph Smith told.

Man, ya just can't trust anybody these days.

Kishkumen wrote:Our friend, Prof. P., has provided us a tidbit of interesting insight into the pulling of the Dehlin hit piece from the Mormon Studies Review:

Prof. P. wrote:I can’t help but wonder, now, whether the anonymous General Authority who apparently asked President Samuelson to tell Jerry Bradford to tell me not to publish the paper had been told that we were going to accuse John Dehlin of murder or manslaughter or something of that sort. I have no reason to believe that any General Authority has read the paper, or that President Samuelson has, and I know (because I asked him) that, at least as of three weeks ago when I last met with him, Jerry Bradford had not. I’ll probably never know. But that would help to account for a part of this rather mysterious drama.

Evidently, Prof. P. is upset because some people are claiming that Louis Midgley's accusation against John Dehlin (namely, that the latter was somehow involved in or connected to the death of one or more missionaries in his mission) at the UVU Mormon Studies gathering was included in Greg Smith's hit piece. Of course, we don't know whether it was or not, but we do know that Louis Midgley got in Dehlin's face and shouted at him this crazy accusation that could have only been generated through the kind of opposition research that would have made Lee Atwater salivate back in the day.

But Prof. P. does not mention the Midgley incident at all. Big Surprise.

I took this to be an allusion to Midgley's blow-up:

DCP wrote:I know something about the matter of the missionary death. I think, in the various tellings of our villainy, that what one person (not the author of the paper) allegedly said about it has become seriously distorted, and made to look far worse and more incendiary than it ever was.

Here's my question: Why are the people at Patheos allowing him to do this stuff? They need to kick him off and let him carry on with this sort of thing without their endorsement. He's going to wind up dragging them down, too.

Droopy wrote:What we "know" is the story John Dehlin has told, including the UVU story, which could be true, could be a purely subjective imposition on what actually happened from Dehlin's own highly self interested mind, or an utter fabrication.

Time will tell.

It was recorded on video, so it's not just John's "story," much less a fabrication. Maybe that's the last resort of the weak-minded: accuse someone of utter fabrication. You impress me less and less every day, Loran. In the time I've been here, I've learned from you and mr. space that to be a good Mormon is to be a racist, reactionary right-winger. That certainly sounds attractive.