DiscussMormonism.com

Okay, so I guess I may as well relay this information to the rest of the community. As always, treat this "intel" with skepticism, because I can't confirm it, and the publicly noticeable people involved will likely deny it. That said, I have rather reliable reasons to believe that Professor Daniel C. Peterson actually commissioned the so-called "hit piece" on John Dehlin. This is entirely in spite of the fact that DCP appeared as a guest on Dehlin's podcast, which may indicate that Peterson appeared simply as a kind of tactical "pre-move."

My own thoughts on this are as follows: I think this is at least somewhat credible in light of the information that has come to light in the wake of the MI "shake-up", namely: Bill Hamblin's ill-advised blog postings; Will Schryver's comments; the manic, pro-FARMS outcry against Dehlin; Dan Peterson's increasingly close alliance with Will Schryver and his "anti-5th Column" rhetoric, and so on.

Based on all this, it may very well be that there was some backroom, Skinny-L chit-chat about how these Mopologists viewed Dehlin as a "threat," and that they decided to lay out a plot to destroy him. Per what I was told, it was Dan Peterson himself who asked for someone to contribute the "dagger-eyed" article--in other words, he was the one who "Gave the Order." Obviously, it didn't work out, but I just wanted to relate what I was told.

Again: I cannot verify this, so treat it with caution.

OMG. The lies these folks tell just keep piling up.

The Q15 just have to be besides themselves on how to deal with both the Maxwell I folks and john dehliners. Haha. God I love it. Eventually they will either have to validate JD and his work, or deal with him with church discipline. They cannot ignore him forever.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Again: I cannot verify this, so treat it with caution.

Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?

Doctor Scratch wrote:This is entirely in spite of the fact that DCP appeared as a guest on Dehlin's podcast, which may indicate that Peterson appeared simply as a kind of tactical "pre-move."

I'll admit it: I'm confused. In what way would appearing on Dehlin's podcast provide a tactical advantage?

cwald wrote: Eventually they will either have to validate JD and his work, or deal with him with church discipline. They cannot ignore him forever.

I disagree. I believe they can ignore him forever, just like they've ignored the implications of the rediscovery of the papyrii forever (so to speak), for example. In fact, I predict they'll do precisely that.

RayAgostini wrote:Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?

If he had labeled it as gospel truth, then yes, it would've been inappropriate. If he adds the appropriate disclaimer, then why not?

RayAgostini wrote:Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?

That does rather give a Murdoch Media Empire feel to the report. Still, Doctor Scratch has been right more often than those reporters.

Dr. Shades wrote:I disagree. I believe they can ignore him forever, just like they've ignored the implications of the rediscovery of the papyrii forever (so to speak), for example. In fact, I predict they'll do precisely that.

touche'

RayAgostini wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Again: I cannot verify this, so treat it with caution.

Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?

Well, do you think it's fair to publish something that individuals cannot verify?

RayAgostini wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Again: I cannot verify this, so treat it with caution.

Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?

Dude, it's a gossipy internet message board. What do you expect?

Drifting wrote:

RayAgostini wrote:
Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?

Well, do you think it's fair to publish something that individuals cannot verify?

(Such as the Book of Mormon, for example?)

Dr. Shades wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:This is entirely in spite of the fact that DCP appeared as a guest on Dehlin's podcast, which may indicate that Peterson appeared simply as a kind of tactical "pre-move."

I'll admit it: I'm confused. In what way would appearing on Dehlin's podcast provide a tactical advantage?

It provides a kind of advantage or "set-up," Dr. Shades. By appearing on the podcast, DCP sets himself up to look like this cooperative, decent, forthcoming guy who cares about The Truth. The reality is that this was just a shell game: behind the scenes, they were secretly plotting to hammer out a "hit piece." You've probably noticed that a key aspect of the Mopologists' rhetoric against Dehlin is their attacking him for saying that he "just wants the truth" or that he "just wants to get the truth out there." This is a major sticking point for the Mopologists: if Dehlin supports The Truth, then what do *they* support? By appearing on the podcast, DCP was attempting to set himself up as this conciliatory "Shepherd for the Real Gospel Truth"--nice enough to appear on the podcast, but then Really, Really Disappointed in Dehlin, who's actually just a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

What gets me about this whole thing is how (allegedly) fundamentally conniving it all is. Dan and his supporters have tried to pooh-pooh away my suggestions that they sit around on Skinny-L, plotting out ways to attack Church critics, but in the end, I think that the evidence is on my side. These just aren't nice people, and it's disappointing that they've roped in so many gullible supporters.