Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_Doctor Scratch]

Okay, wait a second. I thought that Dehlin said that he received word about the essay from an M.I. employee, who did indeed call it a "hit piece"? Is this not the case?

No, it is not. Dehlin's informant was not a Maxwell Institute employee, but a friend of a Maxwell Institute employee:

Hi, John. I don't want to get in the middle of any drama, and especially don't want to get any started up, but I did think you deserve a heads up, in case you are not already aware: I spoke with a friend (who also happens to be one of your Facebook Friends) who works at the Maxwell Institute today, and he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece. You may already be aware of it, and maybe aren't too concerned what a paranoid ultra-conservative apologetic group was to say anyway. My friend did say that he will be attempting to dissuade them over the next few days from putting out the piece. Hopefully he will be successful and the drama will be avoided completely. (source)

You will notice that it was Dehlin's informant—not the Maxwell Institute employee—who stated: "I imagine [it] will be something of a hit piece."

I'm curious what you think is under debate here: the smaller, semantic issue of whether or not anyone at the Maxwell Institute used the phrase "hit piece" (which is neither confirmed nor denied by any of this), or the more substantive debate over whether or not people at the Maxwell Institute found the Dehlin article sufficiently objectionable to oppose it.

Let me ask you this, Nevo: Why do you think the article's publication was canceled? What explanation would you provide that would be acceptably accurate to both critics and the Mopologists? DCP and Hamblin have complained that Dehlin has engaged in censorship, and yet they also insist that no GA was involved. So who do you think pulled the plug here? And what do you think was the ultimate tipping point that influenced this decision?

[_Kishkumen]

Let me ask you this, Nevo: Why do you think the article's publication was canceled?

I think one apologist suggested that there was a potty word in it that couldn't be scrubbed out with any brush they had on hand.

[_Bond James Bond]

I think one apologist suggested that there was a potty word in it that couldn't be scrubbed out with any brush they had on hand.

That must be a hell of a word.

[_Nevo]

Let me ask you this, Nevo: Why do you think the article's publication was canceled? What explanation would you provide that would be acceptably accurate to both critics and the Mopologists? DCP and Hamblin have complained that Dehlin has engaged in censorship, and yet they also insist that no GA was involved. So who do you think pulled the plug here? And what do you think was the ultimate tipping point that influenced this decision?

My guess is that M. Gerald Bradford pulled the plug on the article because he became aware that John Dehlin was complaining about the article to a General Authority and pleading with him (and potentially another General Authority) to get involved, to see that the piece not be published ("I ask you...to please not allow this to happen"). I think Bradford probably quashed the piece to spare the General Authorities additional pathetic appeals from Dehlin on the subject.

In any case, I hope to see the paper published somewhere. I think highly of Greg Smith and would like to read what he has to say.

[_Kevin Graham]

Let me ask you this, Nevo: Why do you think the article's publication was canceled? What explanation would you provide that would be acceptably accurate to both critics and the Mopologists? DCP and Hamblin have complained that Dehlin has engaged in censorship, and yet they also insist that no GA was involved. So who do you think pulled the plug here? And what do you think was the ultimate tipping point that influenced this decision?

My guess is that M. Gerald Bradford pulled the plug on the article because he became aware that John Dehlin was complaining about the article to a General Authority and pleading with him (and potentially another General Authority) to get involved, to see that the piece not be published ("I ask you...to please not allow this to happen"). I think Bradford probably quashed the piece to spare the General Authorities additional pathetic appeals from Dehlin on the subject.

In any case, I hope to see the paper published somewhere. I think highly of Greg Smith and would like to read what he has to say.

Bad guess Nevo.

But thanks for showing your true colors. You turned out to be one of those divisive "choose ye this day whom you shall serve" type apologist after all, huh. For you, it is best to "guess" the bad guy in all this is Dehlin. You know, his "pathetic" appeals about a hit piece you've never read, and for all you know, deserves every ounce of contempt it has received. But let's call them pathetic in the meantime.

The fact that Greg Smith is a pathetic hatchet man (as already demonstrated by Kish) is just too much for you to swallow huh?

The fact that the Maxwell Institute is wandering off the reservation, going against everything that is their stated purpose for existence, just to attack someone who hasn't published a single thing in his life, someone who is in fact a devout Mormon though a perceived threat because he holds unpopular interpretations of Mormon doctrine/history... that fact doesn't seem to weigh on your judgment at all does it.

No, of course not. Anything of the sort would place you firmly in NAMI's cross-hairs just the same. And we can't have that now.

The Mission Statement from NAMIR states:

By furthering religious scholarship through
the study of scripture and other texts,
Brigham Young University's
Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
seeks to deepen understanding and nurture
discipleship among Latter-day Saints
while promoting mutual respect and goodwill
among people of all faiths.

This should be revised to say:

By furthering divisive rhetoric through publications authored by unqualified hatchet-men whose primary goal is attacking those who are perceived to be on the edge of apostasy.

Brigham Young University's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship seeks to deepen the chasms between believer and dissident, and nurture antipathy between Latter-day Saints and apostates while promoting disrespect and ill will towards those who had the audacity to have an unpopular opinion.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Let me ask you this, Nevo: Why do you think the article's publication was canceled? What explanation would you provide that would be acceptably accurate to both critics and the Mopologists? DCP and Hamblin have complained that Dehlin has engaged in censorship, and yet they also insist that no GA was involved. So who do you think pulled the plug here? And what do you think was the ultimate tipping point that influenced this decision?

My guess is that M. Gerald Bradford pulled the plug on the article because he became aware that John Dehlin was complaining about the article to a General Authority and pleading with him (and potentially another General Authority) to get involved, to see that the piece not be published ("I ask you...to please not allow this to happen"). I think Bradford probably quashed the piece to spare the General Authorities additional pathetic appeals from Dehlin on the subject.

I'm not following your reasoning here, Nevo. Is this really what you think? You're saying here that you think the Director of the Maxwell Institute decided to cancel an article merely because he was worried that a fellow Mormon might complain to the General Authorities? The earlier tidbit you quoted said quite explicitly that someone within the Maxwell Institute was planning to try and "dissuade them" from publishing. Do you think that this was also merely a ploy to get Dehlin to stop his "pathetic appeals" to the GAs?

In any case, I hope to see the paper published somewhere. I think highly of Greg Smith and would like to read what he has to say.

You've already expressed that you dislike John Dehlin, so this isn't surprising. What, I wonder, is your ultimate wish for how this will all turn out? Would you like it if Dehlin was excommunicated, censured, or disfellowshipped? You've said that you dislike his approach, which makes me think that you have a clear line in your head concerning which people should be allowed to be Mormons, and which should not. If such a line exists, I think it needs to be articulated by both the Church itself, and by the missionaries. And perhaps by the apologists, as well.

[_Kishkumen]

My guess is that M. Gerald Bradford pulled the plug on the article because he became aware that John Dehlin was complaining about the article to a General Authority and pleading with him (and potentially another General Authority) to get involved, to see that the piece not be published ("I ask you...to please not allow this to happen"). I think Bradford probably quashed the piece to spare the General Authorities additional pathetic appeals from Dehlin on the subject.

In any case, I hope to see the paper published somewhere. I think highly of Greg Smith and would like to read what he has to say.

Holy smokes, Nevo. What on earth happened to you?

I am trying to decide who it is you have more grievously insulted here, M. Gerald Bradford, the GA, John Dehlin, yourself, or our intelligence.

So, in your estimation, M. Gerald Bradford is the kind of spineless bootlicker who will do anything to make sure a GA isn't inconvenienced, regardless of the nature of the issue.

You think that the GA John Dehlin contacted would naturally be the kind of fellow who thrives on such groveling?

You think that everyone is stupid enough to imagine that the kind of fellow whom John Dehlin would appeal to is the same kind who likes the fawning of toadies?

One hardly knows where to begin with the many ways in which your suggestion not only does not add up, but actually assumes the worst of just about everyone involved.

I am deeply disappointed in you.

[_Kishkumen]

This should be revised to say:

By furthering divisive rhetoric through publications authored by unqualified hatchet-men whose primary goal is attacking those who are perceived to be on the edge of apostasy.

Brigham Young University's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship seeks to deepen the chasms between believer and dissident, and nurture antipathy between Latter-day Saints and apostates while promoting disrespect and ill will towards those who had the audacity to have an unpopular opinion.

Absolute genius, and sadly so true about some of these so-called "reviews."

[Anonymous]

...just to attack someone who hasn't published a single thing in his life

Well, other than 300+ podcasts, that is.

...someone who is in fact a devout Mormon

If "devout" is the right word to describe a non-practicing Mormon who rejects or is agnostic about all, or nearly all, of the Church's truth claims.

You've already expressed that you dislike John Dehlin, so this isn't surprising. What, I wonder, is your ultimate wish for how this will all turn out? Would you like it if Dehlin was excommunicated, censured, or disfellowshipped? You've said that you dislike his approach, which makes me think that you have a clear line in your head concerning which people should be allowed to be Mormons, and which should not. If such a line exists, I think it needs to be articulated by both the Church itself, and by the missionaries. And perhaps by the apologists, as well.

I don't dislike John Dehlin. I've never met him but I think he comes across as a likable enough fellow. But I disagree with his stated aim of "help[ing] struggling Mormons find peace during tough transitions," which effectively means—in nearly all cases—facilitating doubting Mormons' exit from the Church. I don't think Dehlin is a competent guide in such matters. And, ultimately, I think he has probably done more to enlarge the ranks of the disaffected than Palmer or Brodie ever managed.

What is my ultimate wish for how this will all turn out? Personally, I would prefer to see John Dehlin to stay in the Church and work through his faith crisis privately, rather than exporting his confusion to the masses and in the process becoming the self-appointed leader/advocate/spokesman of a constituency of disaffected/marginalized Mormons.

[_Drifting]

"help[ing] struggling Mormons find peace during tough transitions," which effectively means—in nearly all cases—facilitating doubting Mormons' exit from the Church. I don't think Dehlin is a competent guide in such matters.

Where should struggling members go?
Keeping in mind Bishops don't have the answers and GA's are aloof from contact from members.