Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_Kishkumen]

I can tell you this Droopy, when I was deep in questioning and concerns and wondering where I would end up John Dehlin was there for me. He emailed with me. He was supportive of me. He was willing to support me no matter what direction I choose. He never encouraged me to leave. In fact he is pleased that I have found a way to stay and be active. His podcasts also introduced me to many believing LDS who are much less rigid in their approach to the Church than you.

That is my experience of John Dehlin as well. I once ran a discussion group with Don Bradley, before Don rejoined the LDS Church. The tone on our board would tend toward pretty negative, and John was there pleading with us for a more positive and constructive approach.

The other person I will say who has been supportive and always willing to listen to me and even offered to meet with me one on one when in Provo was Dan Peterson.

Again, in spite of my anger with some of what he does, I have to admit that he has been similarly generous with me, and with Ray Agostini.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, the only real question I have for you is whether or not you think the "hit piece" was legit, and whether John had good reason to feel worried about it.

How can I judge something I haven't read? and to answer your next predicted question: No, I won't be emailing DCP and asking questions along these lines. While I do consider him a friend, I'm not a "buddy apologist" wishing to support (if you think so) whatever the "hit piece" may be. If and when it's published, I'll read it then, and then make a decision. If it never sees the light of day - end of matter, or at least that matter, but I believe it will arise again in some shape. Even if I don't agree with it, rest assured that I won't consider DCP a reincarnation of Attila the Hun. I think we can respectfully disagree.

Based on what you've been posting, my guess is that your answers would be "No" and "No." You seem totally unconcerned about it, which is weird considering that you're supposedly on friendly terms with him.

I don't recall saying that I'm "on friendly terms" with John. I've never met him in the flesh, and although I was his "friend" on Facebook, I think he had more than 4,000 friends. I always liked his Mormon Stories interviews, which included the Michael Coe interview, the DCP interview, the Edward Kimball interview, and others, and felt they were very objectively done. That's why John's post here really surprised me.

(And do you not find it the least bit troubling that, as Rockslider pointed out, Dehlin had DCP on the podcast, only for Dan to now turn around and stab him in the back?) Instead, you're flying off on these tangents about David O. McKay, and Greg Smith's testimony on MST.

I'll go off on whichever "tangent" I like, thank you, and address what I feel needs to be addressed, not what you think I should immediately address.

Backstabbing? I don't know the full circumstances, neither do you, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd label DCP a "backstabber". Rockslider is apparently still deeply offended that DCP didn't pay him enough personal attention. Have you read the "hit piece"? You know that this is "backstabbing"?

Did John always hold the negative views he earlier expressed here? And yet he still invited DCP, a "big catch", on Mormon Stories?

Hmmmm....I'll really have to rethink that one.

[_Kishkumen]

Did John always hold the negative views he earlier expressed here? And yet he still invited DCP, a "big catch", on Mormon Stories?

Hmmmm....I'll really have to rethink that one.

As I suspected, part of what is going on here is suspicion and jealousy because of the attention people like Dehlin and Brooks have gotten. For a lot of people (Ralph Hancock, anyone?), the fact that they were not called to speak on behalf of the Church reveals that their motives are largely those of self-interest and notoriety. John has Dan on Mormon Stories simply because Dan is a big catch?

Ha!

How big of a catch is Daniel? How does he rate in comparison with Armand Mauss and Richard Bushman? With all due respect to Daniel's wit and erudition, I would rank either of those two much higher in terms of a big name in Mormon scholarship than Daniel Peterson. Hell, I think more people were probably interested in listening to that Born Again Mormon guy, and I can't even recall that fellow's name at the moment. I know I was. I was also more interested in hearing from Paul Toscano and Elbert Peck. I could list a number of other participants on Mormon Stories that were juicier scoops than Daniel Peterson.

To be honest, I haven't even bothered to listen to Daniel's Mormon Stories podcast. I just wasn't all that interested.

No, Ray, I don't think that the idea of John's motivation being primarily one of riding Daniel's coat tails has much merit. But that is pretty funny of you.

[_Tator]

I really, honestly, truly feel sorry for Daniel Peterson, Mike Ash, Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Trevor Holyoak, John Lynch, Jack Welch, etc. They have built their houses upon sand, and now the foundation is slowly washing away. Even the brethren seem to see the writing on the wall (though we obviously have a long way to go in that regard). Still -- so much of their life's work is truly (and unfortunately) an embarrassment and damaging to the church, Mormonism and Mormons alike: a sad, destructive sham.

So I feel sorry for them that in some sense, they have been (and ultimately will be) left out to dry. As dupes. More importantly, I feel sorry for them that in trying to be helpful to the situation, they have only accelerated the pain/damage.....vs. served as a constructive part of the solution.

I am curious which one of the above is the character Static or maybe Static is another sock puppet of Willy "the ScareCrow" Schryver.

[_RayAgostini]

No, Ray, I don't think that the idea of John's motivation being primarily one of riding Daniel's coat tails has much merit. But that is pretty funny of you.

Funny, I didn't think or say that either.

Because of DCP's long, controversial, and interesting online message board participation, very much unlike the others, he was considered a "big catch" (not that John was "riding on his coattails"), and I think at the time even John felt so:

Daniel – My goal with all these interviews (yours, Shawn McCraney’s, and Grant Palmer’s included) is to help show that (within reason) pretty much everyone means well, has at least some substance to their position, and is generally good-hearted.

I think that anyone who is open-minded to your interview will see this…and I know that many, many have.

Thanks again for entrusting us with your story. You deserve respect for doing so….and I believe that your intelligence, wit, sincerity, and good-natured-ness comes through in spades….for those with eyes to see, and ears to listen.

271-274: LDS Apologist – Dr. Daniel C. Peterson.

[_Kishkumen]

Funny, I didn't think or say that either.

OK. Correction noted. I think it is a fair inference based on the range of meanings the phrase "big catch" has.

Because of DCP's long, controversial, and interesting online message board participation, very much unlike the others, he was considered a "big catch" (not that John was "riding on his coattails"), and I think at the time even John felt so:

Thanks for quoting John. I think it highlights his fairness and good intentions very well. In fact, what you have quoted of John here is the very antithesis of LDS apologetics as it has been practiced in recent decades. The person who deserves high praise, in my opinion, is the one who made this kind of forum, in which ex-Mormons, doubting Mormons, and apologists could speak their minds freely, without being attacked, possible. The venues that the apologists have created are exclusionary, aggressive, and triumphal. Their posture is not so much one of seeking understanding as one of calling out the alleged heretics.

This is why John wrote what he wrote in this thread, and I support his view 100%. I have promulgated the view myself for a long time now. I don't need to feel like the apologists are devils to recognize that what they are doing is wrong and needs to stop.

Daniel – My goal with all these interviews (yours, Shawn McCraney’s, and Grant Palmer’s included) is to help show that (within reason) pretty much everyone means well, has at least some substance to their position, and is generally good-hearted.

I think that anyone who is open-minded to your interview will see this…and I know that many, many have.

Thanks again for entrusting us with your story. You deserve respect for doing so….and I believe that your intelligence, wit, sincerity, and good-natured-ness comes through in spades….for those with eyes to see, and ears to listen.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey all,

Never-Mo checking in to share a few words with all my MDB friends. (I have missed you all)

Mormonism offers some of the most bizarre, strange, and divisive threads available anywhere one the entire planet.

As someone who has no personal knowledge regarding anything that sorrounds this particular OP, I have spent a decent amount of time, over the last few years, with things involving Mr. Dehlin (listened to many of his podcasts, read several of his contributions/perspectives offered, read dozens of posts by many who have had personal experiences with him, etc)

This experience above (although limited to some degree) gives me comfort and peace to weigh in and suggest the following:

Mr. Dehlin strikes me as a very good and decent man!

In my opinion, one of his gifts that he generously shares with all who cross his path, is compassion! (A great example to me, a never-Mo, for what it's worth)

He has earned my respect a long time ago!

Whether true, partly true, or false, reading this thread is sad and troubling to me.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kishkumen]

Now that is the Ceeboo that I know and like.

[_RockSlider]

Whether true, partly true, or false, reading this thread is sad and troubling to me.

If true (GA censors MI for JD) this is a very positive step for the church and could be a start for reducing the pain for those who may struggle with their faith in the future.

Rejoice Ceeboo ... no need to be troubled here.

[_RayAgostini]

Their posture is not so much one of seeking understanding as one of calling out the alleged heretics.

Just for the record, I don't consider myself an "alleged heretic". I am a heretic by orthodox Mormon standards and beliefs. In dialoguing with them, where it's possible that is, it's helpful to view yourself realistically. I think McMurrin did this particularly well, and was able to speak his mind, yet Joseph Fielding Smith wasn't in a hurry to have him "out", either. They are the ones doing the "hard yards" in full activity and belief, not me. It would be nice if they can better understand where I'm coming from, but I wouldn't insist that they should accommodate me or even agree with my heresies. I simply accept that fact about our differences, and get on with life "my way". I'm quite okay with that. If I don't like the Mormon lifestyle or beliefs, I'm not going to put the blame for that on them, or insist that they change to accommodate me.