Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _stemelbow »

mormonstories wrote:Yes, yes, yes. Please don't allow the apologists to distract this thread from its purpose -- to lay out the facts. When you guys engage in "tit for tat" exchanges with them, it only serves to take attention away from the real issues. They seek to act as lightning rods....taking the attention away from where it really should be.

Please let this thread be about the facts of this particular situation, if you are willing/able to do so. I welcome any response they would like to offer with regards to the facts.


To be fair, I've been asking questions regarding the info you've supplied and have gotten no response. I just asked some more. Its true I will be attacked for asking. But the questions will go without notice. I"m just seeking facts and nothing is coming in response but attacks. I know you won't see it that way due to your biases. No problem, actually. But I am curious.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_mormonstories
_Emeritus
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:10 am

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _mormonstories »

stemelbow wrote:From Daniel's email:

You're threatening, blackmailing, and defaming, and I don't appreciate it.


Since Dr. PEterson is not here, I hope you don't mind answering. What is he calling "threatening, blackmailing, and defaming"?

Also, it seems that anger with which you replied with previous, and apologized for, was due to this reply he offered you, right? The poor guy seemed to have been going through a lot. Can't really hold that against him, right?

Thanks for some clarification, anyway.


stemelbow - I can't publish the original email, because it will reveal the names of the people that I enlisted for support. But I believe it was my inclusion of other significant people in the original email that got him upset.

The original email basically said:

[Names on the original "To" line withheld],

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

[Text of the email from a friend withheld to protect his anonymity - but this email told me about the article being written about me, and he himself was the one to first characterize it as a "hit pieace"]

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

[more text withheld to protect the people involved]

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 [another name withheld] 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
_mormonstories
_Emeritus
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:10 am

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _mormonstories »

In full disclosure, here's another email I sent to Daniel Peterson and my supportive friends that was part of the dialogue:

[Names withheld]

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.”
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 10, 2012 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Infymus »

Chap wrote:That really is a classic piece of DCP prose.

His interlocutor is said to be "threatening, blackmailing, and defaming". He uses rhetorical juxtaposition to suggest that his interlocutor is of a piece with an 'unhinged former Mormon' about whom he has had to contact the police because of 'threats of violence'. In a display of his customary lack of any sense of boundaries, his personal life is immediately made part of the affair, and we are reminded that he is a very important and busy guy who hangs out in Harvard Yard.

I couldn't have made that up.


Came to respond, saw your response here already. I absolutely agree, this is classic Peterson. His first email to me years ago contained several paragraphs describing his importance, traveling and meeting with important people. He continually needs to stress this. Remind us. A tad bit of insecurity DCP?

As for Scratch's original piece and John's secondary piece, I really want to increase the exposure on the motives of Smith, Peterson and Midgley. Midgley has a long history of this - recall the Tanner incident? Peterson spends incalculable time on the Internet posting snide remarks. This new piece against Dehlin is nothing new, in my opinion.

The more exposure of these apologists, the less their credibility.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _stemelbow »

[quote="mormonstories"]
stemelbow - I can't publish the original email, because it will reveal the names of the people that I enlisted for support. But I believe it was my inclusion of other significant people in the original email that got him upset.

The original email basically said:

Thanks. I would say he over-reacted. I wish questions were answered early on so as to stop the attacks on me. Now the attacking will begin. Here goes...

I feel for his loss. It is a tough time, no doubt.

The positive in all this is, if it is an attack piece, the MI can be stopped, or they can see reason why to stop. Whatever that reason is...who knows?

Now go with peace.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Chap »

To avoid derailing this valuable thread, how about nobody replying to posts that come with a large 'kick me' notice attached?

John Dehlin seems to be telling it like it is. I suppose the person principally referred to here (DCP) will only reply in his chosen protected environments, where he cannot be contradicted effectively. Pity.

Any signs of that yet?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_lostindc
_Emeritus
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _lostindc »

Daniel Peterson, Louis Midgley, and Greg are absolute bitches. Midgley is a piece of crap. Not sure how anyone can defend these folks.
2019 = #100,000missionariesstrong
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _RockSlider »

John and all,

You may or may not have noticed that stemelbow has been one of the main spammers/trolls in the other threads of the last few days on this topic. Best to put him on ignore and encourage others to not quote him.

thanks … have to run, cannot wait to read more on this unfolding issue.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Kishkumen »

Daniel:

I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your brother. I am also sorry to hear that you are being threatened by a disturbed member of the LDS Church in California. This goes a long way toward helping me see why you would react in the way that you did. I don't think your reaction was helpful, but none of us are perfect. I am genuinely saddened to learn of your suffering and loss.

John:

Thank you for putting this stuff out there. I was going to contact you for confirmation or denial of the information on your role in quashing the piece. It seems that Bill and Daniel were not providing false information on that. I apologize again to them for suggesting as much. I am saddened that you were treated this way, although I can't say I am surprised it happened. I hope you are able to catch a breath, relax, and heal from the entire ugly affair.

In my view it was worth not having the unfriendly critique of you published under the auspices of BYU, but I am sorry it was such a harsh experience all the same. Hang in there.

More importantly, what can I say other than to repeat what I have often said about the aggressive treatment that some apologists give to members of the Church in good standing? There needs to be, in my view, some rethinking here. I believe in the basic goodness and good intentions of most of the parties involved here, on both "sides." But clearly what has happened in the past and has happened here illustrates a fundamental structural problem in the way that the LDS Church deals with its doubting members and external critics.

One organization with a relatively closed group of power-players should not be tasked with dealing with both struggling members and external critics. What distinguishes the two groups that the apologists deal with? I would say that the easiest rubric to use is the person's membership, although I admit that it is imperfect. What needs to happen is what is struggling to be born in fits and starts: one organization of a more pastoral character that addresses the needs of struggling members and another organization that handles non-member criticism.

While it is true that both tasks use overlapping skill sets and knowledge, it is the muddying of the distinction that really causes harm. We see it time and time again as doubting and hurting members come online seeking answers, only to get slammed by apologists on the suspicion that they are "fishing" anti-Mormons looking to start trouble. Will a doubting and hurting member sound like an anti-Mormon at times? No doubt. I sympathize with the apologists who feel embattled and can't possibly hope to keep it all straight. They may be very smart, but they aren't mind readers.

From a logistical point of view, this is as big a nightmare for the well-meaning and loyal apologists as it is tragic for the members who get attacked and alienated from the Church because an apologist misidentified them as "anti-Mormon." How much better it would be for everyone involved if some pastoral apparatus were in place to handle the needs of struggling members with appropriate counseling of a spiritual and, if necessary, psychological nature.

I am not talking about turning the henhouse over to the fox. I am talking about using the right resources and tools for the problem. Taking the toolkit of a person who was brought up as an apologist fighting Christian anti-Mormon ministries and the like and aiming him like a weapon at Debbie the housewife and RS president who just discovered the multiple versions of the FV narrative is not healthy or helpful for the Church or the hurting member.

It needs to stop. Now.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Nomomo
_Emeritus
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:42 am

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Nomomo »

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 in1992 (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.

Bizarre! Just found an article from the Los Angeles Times from 1990 about the capsizing of the boat that drowned the two missionaries.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-09/ ... guna-hills
Is Midgley completely unhinged? You weren't even on the boat. How could he possibly use this unfortunate accident against you?
The Universe is stranger than we can imagine.
Post Reply