Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_stemelbow]

That's not what he said.
{Your Lord and Master} only stated that he had not been rebuked directly by a General Authority.

uh. so? Who was he rebuked by? Are you trying to twist it to mean he was rebuked by someone? That would be funny of ya.

[_Kishkumen]

This is sheer hypocrisy. you want to complain that DCP has attacked people personally, and you come back with this? This is sad stuff, if you ask me.

I think sheer hypocrisy in this case would be John Dehlin writing and publishing a 100 page article personally attack Greg Smith and Daniel Peterson.

Pointing out that his description of the hit piece affair is deceptive in strong terms may not be nice, but it does not rise to the level of a novella-length personal critique published in a Church venue.

Really it doesn't.

Furthermore, Daniel's representation can be both factually correct while still giving a misleading impression. It clearly gives a misleading impression, and, based on my long interactions with him, that is not an error.

Daniel is very careful not to give the people he perceives as enemies any rope to help hang him. He knows how the word came down to quash the piece because he and Hamblin were bellyaching about the involvement of a GA the other night. We all read it, and it was captured here for posterity. For him to go on and on about how no GA ever contacted him without acknowledging the involvement of the GA in quashing the piece is deliberately misleading.

[_stemelbow]

I think sheer hypocrisy in this case would be John Dehlin writing and publishing a 100 page article personally attack Greg Smith and Daniel Peterson.

I don't see the need to compartmentalize like that. Either you oppose the personal nature of attacks or you don't. You don't go off attacking people then complain they attack. I mean you can, but its hypocritical.

Pointing out that his description of the hit piece affair is deceptive in strong terms may not be nice, but it does not rise to the level of a novella-length personal critique published in a Church venue.

Really it doesn't.

No. He is saying he is a pathological deceiver. Not that he is being deceptive about this piece.

Furthermore, Daniel's representation can be both factually correct while still giving a misleading impression. It clearly gives a misleading impression, and, based on my long interactions with him, that is not an error.

You're telling me. John's description has been deceptive at times too. He even suggested he was giving full disclosure to events when later we learn there was far more to it. I don't fault him for that. He's not a pathological deceiver. He erred. Move on.

Daniel is very careful not to give the people he perceives as enemies any rope to help hang him. He knows how the word came down to quash the piece because he and Hamblin were bellyaching about the involvement of a GA the other night. We all read it, and it was captured here for posterity. For him to go on and on about how no GA ever contacted him without acknowledging the involvement of the GA in quashing the piece is deliberately misleading.

Whatever. He even said it was possible an apostle was involved. Although he didn't know that. To read it like that and then to complain about him being a pathological deceiver is exactly what John claims he's opposed to.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't see the need to compartmentalize like that. Either you oppose the personal nature of attacks or you don't. You don't go off attacking people then complain they attack. I mean you can, but its hypocritical.

Stem, you're a smart person, you can figure out the difference between deliberate, premeditated, and strategic personal attacks that have the potential consequence of cost of costing a person their membership in the LDS Church, and popping off on a discussion board out of frustration.

Unlike many of us, John Dehlin is not accustomed to engaging in strategic trench warfare with apologists. The combined in-person, verbal assault of Lou Midgley followed up by word that a "hit piece" about him was being published in the NMI is going to get a person's dander up.

Furthermore, if you are so concerned about accuracy, maybe you could be more careful in your choice of words as well.

No. He is saying he is a pathological deceiver. Not that he is being deceptive about this piece.

It was a bad move on his part. And it does look hypocritical of him to say that in his anger. But how do we account for several different moves, all perpetrated by different LDS people associate with the apologetic community, to tarnish John Dehlin in a brief period of time?

Why did Lou Midgley verbally assault John in person? Why did someone cyberstalk his Facebook page to find a tidbit to place on the FAIRwiki? Why was Greg Smith writing a 100+ page work critical of John?

So the guy gets slammed in three different ways at once, and now we are supposed to be shocked if he gets frustrated and pops off in anger?

I call that human more than hypocritical.

John's description has been deceptive at times too. He even suggested he was giving full disclosure to events when later we learn there was far more to it. I don't fault him for that. He's not a pathological deceiver. He erred. Move on.

John is in a very vulnerable position, and he is being attacked from several different directions. If you want sympathy for Daniel, which is deserved, then you should also have some sympathy for John. I am not seeing much from you.

Whatever. He even said it was possible an apostle was involved. Although he didn't know that. To read it like that and then to complain about him being a pathological deceiver is exactly what John claims he's opposed to.

Yeah, well maybe there was a reason John thought an apostle was involved. It's not like he hasn't had communications with them before. And it's not like Seventies never consult with apostles on issues.

I think that careless speculation about the possible involvement of an apostle is a far cry from carefully framing your account to keep others from thinking that a GA might have been involved in any way. The latter is, in my opinion, far more calculating. I haven't really seen that John is a calculating guy.

[_Yoda]

This is my take on the list of events:

1. Greg Smith wrote an article about Dehlin.
2. DCP, as editor of MI, read the article and felt that it was a fair critique of Dehlin's work.
3. Another reviewer at MI who read Greg's article felt that the tone was more a "hit piece" than a simple criticism of Dehlin's work. Since this reviewer was friends with Dehlin, he mentioned the article to him. (Frankly, I think this was a mistake, and completely unprofessional. In my opinion, this reviewer was sharing confidential information from his work. It might not have been a technical breach, but certainly an ethical one. I think that the more professional course of action would have been for this reviewer to go to Greg Smith, the author of the article, and address his concerns with him.)
4. Upon hearing the news from his friend, and after an uncomfortable confrontation by Lou Midgley at a UVU presentation, Dehlin was justifiably concerned about the contents of the article. He was afraid that the article was a smear job. What I don't understand is why he didn't press his friend for a copy of the actual article. It seems odd to me that he would jump to a ton of conclusions about the contents before at least reading it.
5. Dehlin contacted a friend which had some pull in regards to what is published and what is not published in MI. Apparently this friend is either a current, or former GA.
6. This GA contacted DCP, and advised him not to publish the article.
7. Although DCP still felt that the article was legitimate criticism and not a smear piece, he nevertheless took the advice of the GA and pulled the article from publication.

I guess my question at the end of all of this mess, is that aren't we, at this point, anyway, making "much ado about nothing"?

I mean....the bottom line is that the piece was pulled.

Frankly, though, I think that there is much more publicity and curiosity now about the article than there would have ever been had things been kept quiet. That is what I think is a shame. I think that John may be more of a victim now that this whole thing has been publicized. People like Will, who obviously are "anti-Dehlin", are salivatingly trying to get this thing published elsewhere.

I just wish that everyone involved in this had handled it with more tact, and had basically kept their mouths shut. In my view, this whole incident is one unprofessional mess.

[_stemelbow]

Frankly, though, I think that there is much more publicity and curiosity now about the article than there would have ever been had things been kept quiet. That is what I think is a shame. I think that John may be more of a victim now that this whole thing has been publicized. People like Will, who obviously are "anti-Dehlin", are salivatingly trying to get this thing published elsewhere.

I just wish that everyone involved in this had handled it with more tact, and had basically kept their mouths shut. In my view, this whole incident is one unprofessional mess.

Excellent point, Liz. This may come back to haunt Dehlin in a way.

Sheesh...what's with Will. I guess he's very much a "if he's not with us, he's against us" type of person.

[_Kishkumen]

I just wish that everyone involved in this had handled it with more tact, and had basically kept their mouths shut. In my view, this whole incident is one unprofessional mess.

Well said, liz. But regret only gets us so far. And that ain't very far.

The real questions all of us should be thinking about are why we are here and what we can do to make the situation better.

I think those questions will bring a lot more clarity that stewing in regret will.

I am not accusing you of stewing in regret. I am only trying to keep everyone from getting lost in the negative emotion and division.

I think that, in some ways, there is a real opportunity here. I am stating my position on it, and I hope that everyone who reads me can see that my position is not one of punishment, exclusion, shaming, or anger, but one of seeking reconciliation, a positive solution, the best outcome for all, and a better future for others.

I will continue to say that I am not interested in hurting "enemies." I am interested in seeing how all people involved here can improve our situation, and improve the prospects for the Church dealing with struggling and disaffected members more productively.

Apologetics has a clear and established place in the LDS community. I am saying that it does not have the right tools for handling a number of aspects of the struggles of members. They are, for example, completely unequipped by their lack of training to deal with the emotional and psychological side of the issue. They have do direct spiritual stewardship over the members they counsel, which I believe is another often overlooked issue.

I think the conversation needs to shift into a more constructive mode, because where it is at now will only harden differences and squander whatever opportunity this situation may present.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, you're a smart person, you can figure out the difference between deliberate, premeditated, and strategic personal attacks that have the potential consequence of cost of costing a person their membership in the LDS Church, and popping off on a discussion board out of frustration.

Unlike many of us, John Dehlin is not accustomed to engaging in strategic trench warfare with apologists. The combined in-person, verbal assault of Lou Midgley followed up by word that a "hit piece" about him was being published in the NMI is going to get a person's dander up.

I know. We can all get worked up a bit. We can all have a tendency to lash out. So that either excuses everyone or it excuses none of us, as I see it. I don't' care if it took some calculation or not, attack is attack. It could take a great deal of calculation for anyoen to put together a post here.

Furthermore, if you are so concerned about accuracy, maybe you could be more careful in your choice of words as well.

I'm not the one whose so concerned about accuracy. I"m giving passes left and right. I'm just saying accuracy is not an easy thing to acheive for anyone, including John. There's no reason to go after each other because there is a lack of accuracy in one's attempts to explain.

It was a bad move on his part. And it does look hypocritical of him to say that in his anger. But how do we account for several different moves, all perpetrated by different LDS people associate with the apologetic community, to tarnish John Dehlin in a brief period of time?

Yep. I'm saying, both parties are not immune to the mistakes.

Why did Lou Midgley verbally assault John in person?

I hate to say it, but Lou probably has a whole different side to this story. I'm not calling John a liar, but there are two sides to every story.

Why did someone cyberstalk his Facebook page to find a tidbit to place on the FAIRwiki? Why was Greg Smith writing a 100+ page work critical of John?

So the guy gets slammed in three different ways at once, and now we are supposed to be shocked if he gets frustrated and pops off in anger?

I'm not shocked. I'm disappointed that one group is the bad group when both groups are playing the same game.

I call that human more than hypocritical.

Incidentally so do I. I call it far more human than, pathological deceivers, or people who are hurting others.

John is in a very vulnerable position, and he is being attacked from several different directions. If you want sympathy for Daniel, which is deserved, then you should also have some sympathy for John. I am not seeing much from you.

I can only do so much. I don't like some of the things said about John over at MDD. But neither do some of the other participants there and they are saying so. If I wasn't busying myself with my participation here, I'd try my best to be reasonable (I know that comes off as a big fat joke here) there.

Yeah, well maybe there was a reason John thought an apostle was involved. It's not like he hasn't had communications with them before. And it's not like Seventies never consult with apostles on issues.

I think that careless speculation about the possible involvement of an apostle is a far cry from carefully framing your account to keep others from thinking that a GA might have been involved in any way. The latter is, in my opinion, far more calculating. I haven't really seen that John is a calculating guy.

Kishkumen, I plain disagree that DCP was carefully framing his account to keep others from thinking that a GA might have been involved in any way. He indeed suggested not only a GA could have been involved, but so could have an apostle. That's a far cry from him trying to frame it as if no GA's were involved. Indeed earlier he objected that a GA was contacted by John. We know a GA was involved. He admitted it.

[_Buffalo]

I noticed you evaded my question. :)

Neither of those two post here, and for good reason, Buffalo. I am speaking about demonizing participants here.

Bokovoy used to post here, and still occasionally does. What now?

[_Yoda]

Frankly, though, I think that there is much more publicity and curiosity now about the article than there would have ever been had things been kept quiet. That is what I think is a shame. I think that John may be more of a victim now that this whole thing has been publicized. People like Will, who obviously are "anti-Dehlin", are salivatingly trying to get this thing published elsewhere.

I just wish that everyone involved in this had handled it with more tact, and had basically kept their mouths shut. In my view, this whole incident is one unprofessional mess.

Excellent point, Liz. This may come back to haunt Dehlin in a way.

Sheesh...what's with Will. I guess he's very much a "if he's not with us, he's against us" type of person.

Unfortunately, that has always been Will's attitude. Believe me, I have tried reasoning with Will, but to no avail.

He really is an embarrassment to the serious LDS apologists. It has always mystified me why DCP and some of the others there put up with his tactics.