What's in the Dehlin "hit piece"?

[_Cicero]

As some of you may know, Mormon Stories latest podcast is, among other things, a call for donations. I am NOT interested in having an argument over whether anyone should contribute to Mormon Stories. Polygamy Porter already started a thread on that.

What I am specifically interested in is whether anyone on this board has actually read some or all of the now infamous hit piece on Dehlin. Ralph Hancock's latest post states that it contains very damaging information on Dehlin, but the only things Hancock mentions is that John doesn't tell people that they have to stay in church and that he has unorthodox views on homosexuality and other topics. I personally don't think John is trying to hide his views at all . . . so what is the damaging information then?

Just to make my purpose clear, this is not about gossip. I am considering making a financial donation to Mormon Stories, but before doing so I want to know whether something is going to come out that will make me regret my donation.

Generally speaking, I find it troubling that Dehlin appears to have acted to prevent the piece from coming out.

[_Stormy Waters]

My speculation is that the piece had three basic complaints. One, that he no longer believes the truth claims of the church, two that he supports people even if they decide to leave the church, and three that he gave a voice to "anti-Mormons" such as Grant Palmer. From there Greg Smith probably just tries to paint a picture of a "wolf in sheeps clothing" leading people away from the church.

I think it's worth noting that Mormon Stories and apologists are essentially direct competitors. Both are appealing to members who are struggling with the difficult issues of the church.

I have mixed feelings about John Dehlin pushing to stop the piece. But it should be considered that John wasn't the one to stopped it. Someone farther up the line did. Also said 'hit piece' will come out eventually, it just won't be from the MI. At the end of the day, it won't change anything. Most likely it will just state things about John that everyone already knows.

Also to any Mormon who believes John Dehlin is an enemy to the church, if John Dehlin is a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' where are your prophets on this? Aren't they they ones who are supposed to give the warning about the 'wolf?' Why are they silent if souls are at risk?

[_lulu]

My speculation is that the piece had three basic complaints. One, that he no longer believes the truth claims of the church, two that he supports people even if they decide to leave the church, and three that he gave a voice to "anti-Mormons" such as Grant Palmer.

Hooold the pressses!

Who knew?

And anybody who can get 100 pages out of that has got to be a real wack job.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dehlin himself seems to think that Trevor Holyoak was involved in helping to assemble whatever material went into the "hit piece," which means, I guess, that they were harvesting extensive material from his Facebook postings. I would also guess that they would have tried to shoe-horn in whatever it was that Midgley was trying to claim about Dehlin having something to do with a missionary who died. But the long and the short of it is that they were looking to paint him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

Oh, well. It seems that they themselves were ultimately targeted for this label by conservative elements within the Lord's University.

[Guest]

-

[_Cylon]

I think it's worth noting that Mormon Stories and apologists are essentially direct competitors. Both are appealing to members who are struggling with the difficult issues of the church.

Virtually all of the exposure I've had to apologetics has been either through the Mormonthink website or the Mormon Stories interviews with the apologists themselves. So if it weren't for the "anti-mormon critics" I would never have heard their arguments at all. And yes, I have read plenty of stuff from their own websites, I don't just take the critics' summaries of it. The problem with apologetics is not that the arguments are misrepresented by critics, it's that the arguments themselves are not very convincing for the most part (although there are a few exceptions).

As much as I enjoy John Dehlin's work he does have a habit of taking very divergent positions in very short spaces of time. That could be because he genuinely changes his mind a lot and it wouldn't surprise me, but within the exmormon and believing communities it seems to bother a lot of people. I can recall instances where I have heard him say one thing and in a short space of time he's written something expressing almost the opposite opinion. I think that is why some people claim he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth to please everyone.

Are you sure that's not just because he frequently takes the devil's advocate position in his interviews? I can certainly agree that one could get a whole bunch of individual quotes where he's saying contradictory things, but I have not gotten the impression that he frequently changes his mind. Listening to the podcasts from over the years I can see that he's gradually changed his mind on some things, but I don't see it as a constant thing. Could you give an example of what you're thinking of?

I don't see how any believing Mormon Republican who supports Mitt Romney can have any issue with John for that considering Romney does the same thing on a daily basis and even denounced Joseph Smith's First Vision in an interview. Maybe they should do a hit piece on him for that?

I didn't hear about that interview. Do you have a link to it?

[Guest]

-

[_Cylon]

Thanks for clarifying, Hasa. I admit I haven't been following his Facebook very long so if there are more comments like that there I can see your point.

Also, thanks for posting that video. That is pretty blatant pandering.

[_why me]

Lets hope that the piece is published. By John wanting to censor it or squash it, shows that he is not the open guy he wishes to be when it comes to the LDS church. He was afraid of something. However, since the article was written by a private person, it will only be a matter of time before it is published on the web. Then, we can all have a wonderful dialogue about it.

[_Chap]

I really bet Mitt Romney sometimes wishes he was raised a Lutheran.

But he is stuck with LDS, so he has to make the best of it. And the money came that way, so why complain?