John Dehlin update

[_Madison54]

Both Daniel Peterson and William Schryver have posted comments about this now over on the MAD forum. It's interesting to read their take. Any thoughts?

[Guest]

John here.
Also, for the record, I wasn't doing any of the weed smoking/wife swapping stuff...and that stuff was isolated (relatively rare)...

So, just like within the Mormon church--that stuff happens but is isolated and relatively rare.

fearful that I was failing at what I was trying to provide for folks (more happiness/peace vs. less, stronger families vs. weaker families, etc.).

See, this here gets at the heart of the trouble for me. John, you are not pointing only to your own happiness/peace or strength of your own family, you are saying that outside the church, apostates have less happiness/peace and weaker families than within the church. I challenge this assertion and find it insulting.

Too many divorces.

More than in the Mormon church? Got any social science to back that up? I do:

Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate.

This data is supported by an earlier study the National Survey of Families and Households. It found that about 26% of both Mormons and non-Mormons had experienced at least one divorce at some time during their life.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

Too much sadness/recklessness for my taste.

More sadness than in the Mormon church? More recklessness? Again, if it is only your own sadness and recklessness that is factoring into the equation, I get why you would go back to church. But you are not arguing that. You are arguing that there is more sadness and recklessness among disaffected and former Mormons than there is among faithful Mormons. I challenge that assertion and find it insulting.

The last thing that people need is another cult leader...

On this we agree. So, it is perplexing that you would choose to go back to following not one, but fifteen of them.

[_Equality]

Ok Equality that really made me LOL!

Me, too. I can't tak credit for it, though. It was engineered by one Lunar Quaker.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Both Daniel Peterson and William Schryver have posted comments about this now over on the MAD forum. It's interesting to read their take. Any thoughts?

Well Madison you got me to go look.
He's referring to the Maxwell incident.

I certainly don't, for the simple reason that I know his version of that story is patently false. I have learned to assume that everything John Dehlin does is driven by his overwhelming need to draw attention to himself. I have also learned that he has no compunction whatsoever to twist the truth in order to present himself as someone of importance who possesses power and influence. As the de facto leader of the alienated Latter- day Saints who once flew the Mormonstories banner, Dehlin was able to enjoy some measure of that sense of importance he craves. Within the Church, Dehlin will never be able to replicate the sense of power and influence he enjoyed over the course of the past few years. Therefore I can confidently predict that this will be his last rebound back into church activity, and it will not last very long. Whether or not he can once again reclaim the scepter of his former influence among his apostate friends remains to be seen. But I doubt it. Rather, I suspect he will then see fulfilled at least one portion of Joseph Smith's often-quoted prophecy: "[He] shall be despised by those that [once] flattered [him]."

[_Madison54]

Yes, that comment and then Schryver states:

Had he not been quite recently proclaiming that he "got Dan Peterson fired," I might have been inclined to cut the guy some slack in the short term. Unfortunately, everything I have seen from Dehlin in the past few months serves to confirm my sense of his motivations. A man may, I believe, change his stars, but I don't foresee this leopard changing his spots.

And, this from Louis Midgley:

I agree that speculation is not helpful. Dan Peterson's response to Why Me's assertion that "the controversy over John [Dehlin] and the Maxwell Institute can now be seen more clearly" should be taken seriously. Dan wrote: "Don't assume that John Dehlin's version of that is accurate."

Since I have been a minor figure in that controversy, I will now provide a bit of information on something about which I believe Dehlin has been opining and which he has not told the truth. Those in thrall to Dehlin's recent remarks should have my version of a conversation that he claims led him to do several things. If he is, as I very much hope is the case, coming back to faith in Jesus Christ, then he should be concerned not to keep alive false claims about others.


I posted the following item, see below, to the FAIR list at 10:30pm on 29 March 2012, which was the evening of the exchange between John Dehlin and Scott Gordon at Utah Valley University. This was slightly longer than four hours after my wife and I had departed UVU and had dinner and returned to our home. The following is an exact copy of my report of what went on at UVU in the afternoon of 29 March 2012 except that I have made a few tiny corrections and additions which are shown in brackets. Something I said confused Dehlin, and I did not correct or restate my point. I made it appear that I believed that reading Grant Palmer’s book caused him to go missing. Clearly he had what he calls his “faith crisis” long before that. I didn’t try to correct what I had said to him about Palmer. I was aware that he had gone missing much earlier than 2002, when he fell in love with Palmer’s book. However, I did not fully realize is that he had essentially gone missing in 1993 while he was a senior at BYU finishing up his degree in Political Science. He was one of my students and is known by many of my colleagues. He recently interviewed Ralph Hancock, for whom he was a teaching assistant.

Dehlin had, it seems, gotten involved with a few cynical returned missionaries. Unlike Dehlin, they seem to have been readers and hence could feed him what seemed to him intellectually stimulating gossip about LDS history and so forth. This unhinged his naïve faith. This is what he tried to feed to his young high school students when his Bishop called him to teach early morning seminary when he eventually worked at Microsoft. That “calling” seems to have been his first effort to manipulate an LDS audience. When he ceased employment at Microsoft and moved to Logan, he began his current up and down career helping troubled Saints make what he describes as an informed decision on whether to stay in the Church.

I have not listened to his most recent interview. I have only listened to three of his podcasts. One of these is the one the contents of which I am told he has had to explain to his Stake President. This is the interview by the Larsons who are a husband and wife team that operate, if I remember correctly, something called “Mormon Expressions.” I also know that the brethren were very much aware of this podcast. I assume that this explains why his Stake President had a transcript of that podcast. Given the internet, there is simply no way to hide things, and especially if one wants and audience and wants to make a living opining in public.

The “very brief” note that I mention below, is included In my essay entitled “Defending the King and His Kingdom,” which was in a somewhat different form was intended to be the “Editor’s Introduction” to the cancelled issue of the Review, I included, still in a paraphrases form, the “very brief” note I mentioned to Dehlin on 29 March 2012. I did not cite or quote Dehlin in my essay. But anyone who has listened to the Larsons interview with Dehlin, I have done, or read it, as I am told Dehlin’s Stake President has done, will be familiar with Dehlin’s bold statements of radical unfaith, and not merely getting the details of our history accurately and fully sorted. I have from 1980 to the present been anxious for this to take place, and have tried my best to contribute to it.

These are my notes on my exchange with Dehlin on the afternoon of 29 March 2012:

[After one sentence introducing my remarks to the FAIR volunteers, I indicated that] I asked Dehlin if I would telling the truth about him and also something important for the Saints to know, if I were to publish--I emphasized that word--a very brief little note in which I indicate that I have heard him say in a public venue that anyone can listen to that he does not believe in God, does not think that there was a Jesus, and that the atonement is rubbish. I had indicated that I would be paraphrasing but, if I published such a note, I would quote his very words in context. He called me a liar. He had not said those things. Where was I wrong? I again said that I am paraphrasing. He called me a liar a second time. On what matter? He objected to the word rubbish [as an adequate description of his flat rejection of the atonement]. I emphasized that I was paraphrasing, but I would quote his exact words, if I were to publish such a note. He called me a liar again, and he then said that he had merely indicated that the atonement was hard to understand. In two or three sentences I explained what i[s] taught in our scriptures. What is hard to understand in that, I asked. Well, I am a liar. I then told him that he is dissembling. [This was the word I used. It is a nice way of saying that he lacks probity.] He had sneered at the atonement. I easily could quote his very words. He called a liar again. I then explained that his sneering at the atonement seems to follow rather easily from the fact that he does not even think there was a Jesus, and hence he certainly could not have been God whose victory over an unjust death by demonic powers made possible our deliverance from the evils of this world on condition of our obeying his commandments. He seemed stunned. Finding that the atonement is silly, I explained, seems to follow from his dismissing [both Jesus as a historical person and also] God. And I told him I think that someone who wants the Brethren to tell the truth ought not to shy away from having the ground for his endeavors open to public inspection. After all, with his reputation for being open and honest, would not knowing his opinions on these matters help people leave [or stay in] the Church?

I then said that I noted that he boasts that he does not read. I told him that it shows in his podcasts. And that, if he bothered to read what those who he denigrates as apologists have written, he would realize that the Book of Mormon is on solid ground, and the Book of Abraham is not nonsense. It simply cannot be the case that people leave the Church because of what they learn from FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

I told him that when he had his crisis of faith in 1992[3] that a phone call to me or any of those he studied with in my department [that is, the Political Science Department at BYU] could have salvaged his faith. Then I said that giving up on the atonement and God because of what one finds in Grant Palmer's book is absurd. The reason is that we have demonstrated in detail that every single argument in that book is wrong. I reminded him that we (once had) had a long correspondence and that he has admitted that every argument in Palmer's book is wrong, but that the book as a whole gets it sorted out. I described this as absurd. But, since he wants to pull the Church from his founding historical narrative, I insisted, he simply will not even read the five reviews of that book and confront arguments and evidence. So something else generated his apostasy other than scholarship and evidence. What was it? That he had not [even once] heard about seer stones? But they are clearly what were called Interpreters in the Book of Mormon. He did not have to hear about th[em] in primary. He was an A student at BYU, I reminded him, and could read the Book of Mormon to own his faith.

I asked Dehlin if there might be something that happened on his mission that led he to look for vengeance. Was he, I asked, involved in that death on that lake in Guatemala? No, but his companion died in that accident. I could not follow his explanation, except that he was fighting to put a stop to underage baptisms, and so forth. He then fingered some Assistant to the President as the one responsible for problems among the missionaries. But why then go after his Mission President? Those who know him [the Mission President] do not believe he was the source for the problem. And the Brethren who looked into the matter did not see him as the problem. I then added that I have no interest in investigating what when on in his mission, but that he should ask himself what went on in his heart and mind that eventually led him into a naïve atheism.

I indicated that I do not think that he wants any of the Brethren to look into these matters. He said they already have and have sided with him. I then said that I doubt that his way of positioning himself could [withstand a] full analysis. Does he really want the Brethren or others to know where he really stands on various crucial issues? While this conversation was going on there was no sneering, as there was when he glanced at Scott [during his presentation]. What I saw, instead, was anxiety and even panic in one who is otherwise really smooth and confident, and filled with Mormon nice. Greg will understand.

A couple was standing behind me and they introduced themselves immediately after I stepped down from the stand. The husband had been a student of mine 40 years ago. I did not, of course, recognize him. He said, with his wife approving, that he held me in high esteem. I am usually uncomfortable with that kind of talk. But he could remember details from the course he had with me. He is an avid follower to the MI. He loves Dan Peterson's Mormon Scholars Testify. His last child, a boy, is currently on a mission. He sends him a link to MST each week. He said that he would send my contribution to his son. He then said that he was delighted to witness my encounter with Dehlin. The reason was that it was easy to read the body language, and he felt that Dehlin was obviously troubled by what I was telling him. I explained that I was merely defending the founding narrative upon which our faith rests from Dehlin's sophistic attack.

There was another fellow there who reminded me that he had studied the Federalist from me. And that I had, from time to time warned my students about the kind of thing Dehlin has set out in his talk. And that I had shown a fondness for New Zealand and the Maori. This also pleased me and my wife. We explained that we had served a mission there after I retired and that she was able to experience the things I have been raving about all this time.

Boyd Peterson, who organized the conference, said that he had taken a lot of heat for inviting Dehlin, but also has people complain long and loud about having Scott Gordon on the program. One angry evangelical lady wanted to know if he was a Latter-day Saint. Boyd said that he was. Did he know about polygamy, or MMM, and so forth? Boyd said that he responded affirmative to more than 25 questions. How can one know about these things and be a believer. Boyd explained that much of what she mentioned were good reasons for being a believer. He tried to explain in a nice way why this was the case, and she then gave up.

I have to admit I'm not that familiar with the Mormon apologists other than to recognize some of their names. Maybe those who have more knowledge and history with them can comment?

[_Mayan Elephant]

that piece from midgley is unbelievable. that is a sick dude.

it is shocking to me, that even the Mormon mr. twister, dehlin, could experience that sort of communication and then go running back into the arms of that church.

[_Mayan Elephant]

I then said that I noted that he boasts that he does not read. I told him that it shows in his podcasts. And that, if he bothered to read what those who he denigrates as apologists have written, he would realize that the Book of Mormon is on solid ground, and the Book of Abraham is not nonsense. It simply cannot be the case that people leave the Church because of what they learn from FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.

i remember reading fair and farms for days, sleeplessly. nothing pushed me further from the church like the stuff i read from midgley. of all the authors and books and papers i read, midgley was the most profound influence. more than sutherton, palmer or anything at signature books. midgley's content and tone sent me right out the door for good.

[_SteelHead]

The degree of pompous, judgemental, condescension on the part of Midgely is staggering. Why he would post this for all to see......?

Asserting that someone is an antichrist? Check.
Asserting that the apologists have the answers to salvage faith? Check.
Asserting that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are on solid footing? Check.

John's surveys have shown that the apologists cadre do more harm than good. Maybe one day they will listen to that message and re-engineer their modus. Until then..... Pompousity!

[Guest]

-

[_Sammy Jankins]

As far as the Midgley/Dehlin exchange John said he had a video recording of it. I'd be interested to see it. Although if he didn't release it then, I'm sure he won't now.

5) After my panel discussion at UVU, Lou Midgley came up and verbally assaulted me (that's how it felt to me, anyway) -- threatening me and attempting to tie me to the death of a missionary on my mission (Brian Bartholomew), and trying to tie me to Grant Palmer back in 1992 (one of the most bizarre accusations I've ever heard, since it was another decade before I even learned his name). People took pictures and video of the affair (which I have)....which was pretty funny. The interaction, of course, was not funny. Not at all. It was deeply disturbing to me.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23840

I suppose getting in a pissing match with apologists while already dealing with disgruntled ex-Mormons is not in his best interest.