Kicking the Dehlin dead horse ONE. MORE. TIME.

[_aussieguy55]

On it goes on Facebook

John Dehlin Daniel Peterson - This schism seems super unhealthy for LDS apologetics generally, and BYU/the church specifically. It would be awesome if ya'll could come to a private understanding/resolution instead of handling it as a public dispute. I honestly can't see who wins in this current environment. Seems like everybody loses. My 2 cents.
2 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4..Andrew Mills Funny John Dehlin, some of the faithful Mormons think that the schisms that you cause are emotionally unhealthy and bad for the LDS in general. It would be awesome if you could come to a private understanding with yourself not leading members astray... I mean, even BCC considers you apostate...
2 hours ago · Like..John Dehlin I take it back. These schisms are a "win" for anti-Mormons.
2 hours ago · Like · 1..John Dehlin Andrew Mills - Yours is the type of attack/rhetoric that got LDS apologists into this place to begin with. Unfortunate. I'm doing the best that I can. Not perfect, but trying. And I'm certainly not trying to create schisms.
2 hours ago · Edited · Like · 9..Andrew Mills Cuz it's root, root, root for the hometeam...
2 hours ago · Like · 1..Andrew Mills Just calling em like I see it John. by the way, I can't wait for the truth about you to be revealed... What you tried to suppress, Oh I just can't wait to read and relish every bit of the character assassination that truth will deal to you. Exciting just thinking about it.
2 hours ago · Like..Jeff Roberts Daniel, when you find the time I would be interested in your perspective on the question I posed the other day concerning the difference between your scholarship and symposia?
about an hour ago · Edited · Like..Gary Parker Hahahahahahahahahahaaa!
2 hours ago · Like..William Hamblin John, if you are really interested in peace, why don't you begin by publicly withdrawing you repeated slanders against Dan that: 1- the GAs were behind his dismissal at NAMIRS, 2- that Dan "commission" the Greg Smith piece, and that 3- the Smith article is nothing but an ad hominem hit piece against you. (I've read it, you haven't. Only after you've actually read it, should you feel free to comment on it.)
about an hour ago · Edited · Like..Justin Rosengreen Whoa, watch out... Andrew has a raging character assassination boner.
about an hour ago · Like · 5..William Hamblin John Dehlin, I agree that the debacle at NAMIRS has done no good, but it was caused entirely by the Bradford Junta. I had absolutely nothing to do with it, and neither did Dan. I did not just randomly decide to comment on the matter. I responded to one of the directors of NAMIRS calling classic-FARMS research "commercial apologetics," and openly affirming that the Bradford Junta intends to reappropriate funds donated in good faith to FARMS and the university for classic-FARMS research to their own pet projects. I am certainly as much entitled to comment on current LDS affairs as you and Mormon Stories are, aren't I?
about an hour ago · Edited · Like..John Dehlin William - 1) All I know is that I spoke to a GA about the article....I have no idea about DP's dismissal, 2) Maybe the word "commissioned" isn't accurate. I don't know. But as the editor of the journal...and w/ Greg Smith being a former assistant or associate editor (correct?)....how would you characterize DP's involvement? Did Smith write it without DP's knowledge? Was DP involved in the planning? I'll use whatever word ya'll tell me to use to describe his involvement in the creation and attempted publishing of the article. 3) The "hit piece" term is short-hand for what I've been told by others...since ya'll won't let me see the article. I'd love to read the article if you'd send it to me and then I'd use my own term. Deal?
about an hour ago · Like · 2..William Hamblin Yes, Gregory L Smith wrote it without DCP requesting it. He did it on his own volition. Unsolicited submissions happened frequently under the old review. (Under the "new" review, there are no submissions at all.) Dan has told you this many, many times. The people who called it a hit-piece had not read the article either, so you are simply spreading slanderous rumor. You'll get a chance to read the article soon enough.
about an hour ago · Like..William Hamblin Just a few days ago, John wrote "Daniel Peterson ... support[ed] tactics like commissioning a hit piece on me." That's slander. Stop it.
about an hour ago · Edited · Like · 1..Drew Knight I agree the term "commercial" is a curious one. And, if donations were in fact given for the express purpose of apologetics, I think it's totally justifiable to be dismayed that they are now being appropriated for a different purpose. That said, even a cursory glance through this thread reminds me of the often vitriolic nature of Mormon apologetics and only confirms to me it's a good thing the LDS church is disengaging from it (if that is, in fact, what they're actually doing).
49 minutes ago · Edited · Like..Daniel Peterson The word "commissioned" ISN'T accurate. And I DO know.
32 minutes ago · Edited · Like..Daniel Peterson The LDS Church isn't "disengaging." The Maxwell Institute, under its new leadership, is doing so. The Church had nothing to do with the recent purge.
34 minutes ago · Like..Drew Knight I'm sure it could be true that the church leadership had absolutely no knowledge of or influence over the new direction of the institute- I just find it hard to believe. But, if that's truly the case and the LDS church hasn't disengaged, I wonder what or who the church has in mind to officially carry the apologetic torch following the Maxwell Institute's purge.
25 minutes ago · Like..Daniel Peterson That's truly the case. I know whereof I speak.
24 minutes ago · Like..Write a comment.....

[_DrW]

Aussieguy 55,

Thanks for you post.

Would not have seen this otherwise.

[_Tad]

Hoping for change at a grass roots level is also a delusion.

The church is not going to change until the current leadership dies. It's that simple and that stark.

Agreed. A similar sentiment about the acceptance of new science:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"

-- Max Planck

[_Equality]

I might join the fray if John hadn't unfriended me. Interesting that he has decided to join with DCP and Hamblin and Midgley as fellow "brothers in Chist." Gotta love the love that the LDS church fosters. Who cares if it isn't true? It's a great community of loving people who just want to embrace their fellow Saints in an big old bearhug of love.

[_sunstoned]

The answers do exist. But they aren't the answers the church is looking for, so the church will never endorse them.

One example: why do the Egyptian papyri contain content that is not what Joseph Smith produced as the Book of Abraham?

The answer is simple: because Joseph Smith was making it up when he said the papyrus did contain it.

Would it really help the church to just put that answer up on some official web page? Of course not.

I fundamentally disagree with all the critics who think the church would be helping its cause by being honest about the history. I think that would be disastrous to its cause. People finding out anyway is disastrous, but on an individual scale.

I tend to agree with you. Full disclosure would hasten the church down the path of implosion, similar to that of the Community of Christ. Iron rod, tithe paying members would not react well to the idea that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, or that the Book of Abraham was a mistake, or that sleeping with other men’s wives is just one of Joseph’s little character flaws. The COB knows if it comes completely clean, that would be a Pandora’s box that you would never get closed again.

So what options does the church really have? If they stay the course, they will continue to shrink in membership. The church is spending millions on their “I’m a Mormon” and similar campaigns, which I think is a little disingenuous. But even so, I wonder how effective these efforts are in the long run.

My thoughts are that the COB should take a few steps closer to honesty. Don’t through the baby completely out, but at least change the bathwater. Clarifying some of the none faith destroying issues like the Book of Mormon translation process, the multiple first visions, apologizing for the priesthood band, dropping some of BY’s nonsense, and backing away from this mythical infallibility of the big 15. With the big stuff, they could just play the I don’t know card. Not perfect, but if done right, most members would adjust, and this would make for a more open organization. It would also ease a lot of the criticism.

Just my .02.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Picking up were Aussie left off on the Facebook confrontation.

Roger Nicholson Drew Knight - my guess is that the Church will simply allow the unofficial apologetics to continue forward, without having an "official" outlet for such material.
14 hours ago · Like · 1

Gary Widdison Fire away, boys. I'm loving every minute of this!
13 hours ago · Like · 1

John Mills Charity never faileth, friends!!!
13 hours ago · Like · 3

John Mills Contention is not helpful
13 hours ago · Like · 1

Daniel Peterson Even FARMS or, later, the Maxwell Institute was never an "official" apologetics unit. There is no such thing, never has been, and shouldn't be.
13 hours ago · Like · 2

Tom Haws To those of you steeped in (gradually heated in) this type of exchange, what I'm about to say may seem incredible. But this is the most venom I have read in a Facebook thread in months and months. It would be helpful to examine your perspectives, your influence on this thread, and your real dedication to the highest truth of all, which is Love.
13 hours ago · Like · 12

Neal Douglas We don't need apologetics. We need the Church to teach its history and address the thorny issues of its past without whitewashing things in the first place. John's study on why Mormons leave clearly showed that apologetics do not help people going through a faith crisis. In fact, they tend to reinforce the reasons for it.
13 hours ago · Like · 9

Neal Douglas Amen Tom Haws!
13 hours ago · Like

Aaron C. Brown Ahem. BCC is not a monolith.
12 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Aaron C. Brown I'm talking to you, Andrew Mills.
12 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

Aaron C. Brown All I want for Christmas is a Sunstone Symposium session where Dan, Bill, Lavina and Paul Toscano get together to compare and contrast their respective purges. That would be super-nifty.
12 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4

Jeff Roberts Sometimes the truth hurts and may be venom like but sometimes the air needs to be cleared. Show all your cards so everyone can move on. No agendas. If any integrity is to exist beyond your own personal fan clubs then hang the laundry. We all seek the same objectives in different ways and that should be respected.
12 hours ago · Like

Daniel Peterson Neal Douglas: No analogous "study" has been done by the "other side," but I suspect, and I have plenty of anecdotal evidence (including phone calls, letters, emails, face to face comments, etc.) to support my suspicion, that a questionnaire among a different group would yield different results. LDS apologetics has helped a considerable number of people, unless they're lying, Does it help all people? No. Does medicine? No.
12 hours ago · Like · 1

Daniel Peterson John Dehlin: I'll probably respond to your lengthy interrogation on my blog. But probably not tonight.
12 hours ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin I'm happy to use other words if I'm being inaccurate. A few final points:

1) If the article was purely Greg Smith's decision, I'd like to know how long Daniel Peterson knew it was in the works...since Greg Smith was an associate or assistant editor. DCP -- Please tell us what you knew about the piece during its authorship stage, and when you knew about it (if, in fact, you didn't commission it). If I'm wrong, I'll gladly change my language.

2) On March 21st, 2012 I was informed by someone very, very close to the M.I. that an article was being written about me by the M.I. This person has read the article, and described the article as "an attack," "an expose" and he used the words "screed," "sneer," and "snide" in his description of it. He also wrote that, "Acrimony, confusion, and darkness will be the fruits if this is published." I have the documentation. I was also told later that the proposed name of the piece was called something to the effect of, "Lying Mormon Stories that John Dehlin has told to me." So I think I had cause to be concerned/alarmed. Wouldn't you have been? DP -- I'd love to know what the proposed title of the piece was at the time I heard about it. Will you share with us the proposed title or titles at the time? Focusing on the term "hit piece" feels like a smoke screen to me, for what it's worth.

3) You guys like to emphasize that no one has read the piece....but that's kinda your fault for not sharing it. DP could have shared it with me or the GA in question the day I emailed him and the GA inquiring about it, which could have cleared things up pretty quickly..if it wasn't a "hit piece" that is. But he didn't. Will ya'll share it with us now? Maybe even the original version -- before it got watered down?

4) Lou Midgley acted like a thug to me at the UVU event....and carries a huge part of the blame in all this for verbally assaulting, scaring and threatening me at the UVU event. His invocation of a dead missionary (a personal friend of mine) and Grant Palmer (someone I didn't learn about until much, much later) during that conversation were completely offensive and out of place, and his threats to try to harm me via my bishop/stake president were sickening.

5) It's pretty clear that Bradford was told not to publish the piece by people above him...and that GA's and the BYU President were also involved (somehow). Those people are called by God, you know. Hanging it all on Bradford seems like denial (and scapegoating). Bradford did not act alone in shutting the piece down. He was directed by people above him to kill the piece. I'm sure you know this.

6) The Maxwell Institute serves and exists at the pleasure of BYU, which is led by people who are called of God. By fighting against the M.I., you are fighting against both BYU and the church. At least it feels like that to me.

7) My guess is that DP was let go for how he handled the aftermath of the decision to kill the piece, along w/ whatever baggage he carried with him up to then. (I'm speculating of course). That said, I never enjoy seeing someone get fired...so I'm very sad about that part. I really am. And I've told DP so myself, and apologized for any pain I might have caused him, because I don't wish him or anyone ill...even Lou.

8 ) If ya'll release a super-edited-down version of the original article, we'll never be able to know for sure if was a "hit piece" or not. I'm sure you know that, but I just wanted to say it on the record.

9) I believe that LDS apologetics needs to be rooted in love, kindness, honesty, and compassion for those who are suffering. I played basketball. Not allowing an "uncontested layup" (to those who play basketball) often means playing rough...sometimes via intentional fouls. In my opinion, one can't credibly stand for Christ by attacking people - no matter what Elder Maxwell may have said. If LDS apologetics isn't rooted in love first....it will continue to harm people. And it has (along with helping people too). I am not happy at all that some hard times have come to DP, but I am proud for standing up against the negative/bullying tactics of Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, and the former M.I. I was not scared to have the piece published. At all. I opposed it because I sincerely believed that in the end, things like that are damaging to LDS apologetics, BYU, the church, and to both believers and disbelievers. I am also super happy that the new M.I. has chosen a more Christ-like direction (in my opinion). God bless Gerald Bradford and the leaders who have supported him, as far as I'm concerned.

10) I wonder if the piece will include the hundreds and hundreds of public comments people have made over the years saying that Mormon Stories has helped them stay IN the church. Doubt it.

11) I remain truly sad/sorry for any pain this might have caused DP or anyone else. I tried to handle things directly w/ DP, but he didn't respond in any credible/reasonable way. But again, I know that Daniel Peterson is a good-hearted person who means well. I sincerely wish him well.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like · 5

Daniel Peterson No, on second thought I'll probably respond to it on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board. I don't want to clutter my blog with stuff like this. And I'll probably do it tomorrow, if I get a chance. (I have to go to Park City tomorrow and then, possibly, up to Bountiful.)
12 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel "The Institute was originally “The Foundation for Ancient Research AND Mormon Studies.” That is, it was an institute dedicated to researching the nexus and convergence where ancient research and Mormon studies overlap. This included the Book of Mormon as an ancient book, ancient temples, Abrahamic, Enochian and other pseudepigrapha, etc." - Many years ago I was thrilled to have learned about FARMS and that precise mission statement. So sad Bradford's taken that great vision away.
12 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - "It would be awesome if ya'll could come to a private understanding/resolution instead of handling it as a public dispute. I honestly can't see who wins in this current environment. Seems like everybody loses. My 2 cents. - Yeah, perhaps if apologists just made some Podcasts about this ordeal that would privately take care of such concerning issues.
12 hours ago · Like · 2

Darren Zechiel From the main article - "These changes, from the Junta’s perspective..." - Ohhh, now things are making a bit more sense: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60022-junta/ - Heh!!!

http://www.mormondialogue.org
http://www.mormondialogue.org
Junta! - posted in General Discussions: Junta! Junta! Junta! Junta!
12 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel Regarding FARMS / Mormon Studies, I am interested in upcoming publications from John Sorenson and Brian P. Stubbs (Hope I spelled them correctly) but beyond that my interest is in making purchases from organizations like Mormon Interpreter which carry on FARM's original purposes.
12 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin Darren Zechiel - I would be happy to reconcile with Daniel Peterson any time...any place. Would love to do so. Invitation is totally open.
12 hours ago · Like · 1

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - "Not perfect, but trying. And I'm certainly not trying to create schisms." - Your auto hagiography can only last so far. So far I'm concerned you bare false witness to your neighbor and to those who have shown you and do show you great amounts of charity. And while you deride Mormon apologists, you yourself have become an apologist for your own specified group. The apologies you purport for your cause are more vile than anything you can conjure up from Peterson or Hamblin (from which I recall no vile whatsoever). I'm not sure at this point whether you are completely blind to the false accusations you hurl at Peterson and apologists or if you're truly convinced that you're in the right but I nonetheless extend the benefit of doubt towards you.
12 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - "Darren Zechiel - I would be happy to reconcile with Daniel Peterson any time...any place. Would love to do so. Invitation is totally open." - While that's a very saintly thing of you to say, an enormously beneficial place to start is to renounce your false claims against Daniel Peterson. Many people in the know have claimed that Dr. Peterson commisioned no "hit piece" on you and that what you have called a "hit piece" and complained to a general authority friend of your as a hit piece was actually a review of your movement: Mormon Stories.
11 hours ago · Like · 1

John Dehlin Darren Zechiel - I've never "born false witness" on purpose. I may have gotten some details wrong in the past via bad memory or writing in haste...but I've never intentionally lied to anyone (that I can recall). I honestly haven't. This is my side of the story.
11 hours ago · Like · 1

John Dehlin Darren Zechiel - See my comments above. I was told directly by people directly associated with the M.I. that it was an attack piece....unbecoming of the M.I. I was also told that the proposed title was something to the effect of, "Lying Mormon Stories that John Dehlin has told to me." DP had every chance to send the article to me and others and disabuse of of the claim...but he didn't. So I stand by my understanding of the situation...and I trust my friends who gave me the information...one of them who worked directly for the M.I.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

Alden Weight Interesting, and disappointing, to see some of the previous comments. Critics: Moroni 7:14. Defenders of the faith: Matthew 10:16. Or if you like--Critics: Matthew 10:16. Defenders of the faith: Moroni 7:14. Just saying.
11 hours ago · Like

Kerry Daubert Why don't you people start acting like academics and not adolescents! I am a medical doctor and even in our petty world of bickering it pales to how you are acting. I have appreciated everything John has done and in my opinion he has reached more people in a loving way then you apologist...here is my take on this:.And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 16:10)
11 hours ago · Like · 1

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - "I've never "born false witness" on purpose." - That may be so but I find it quite challenging to conclude that your recidivistic repetition of falsy accusing Daniel peterson and others as accidental - "I may have gotten some details wrong in the past via bad memory or writing in haste...but I've never intentionally lied to anyone (that I can recall)." - I did not say you "lied" but that you have born false witness. In what is arguably a moment where the sod of God was divuldged to man on Mount Sainai, the Lord God revealed that we should not bare false witness against others. This goes beyond lying. Once we learn that we have spoken (or written) falsely of another, we are to make amends. Scripturally-speaking, one cannot expect forgiveness of one's sins while swimming in falsely accusing others of sinning.
11 hours ago · Like

Nancy Roberts Beck Wow!
11 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel As to learn about the "sod" (pronounced "sawd") of God I cannot recommend some ofthe works of Daniel Peterson and William Hamblim more highly. And it's coming soon to a Mormon Interpreter near you.
11 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin Darren Zechiel - On March 21st, 2012 the piece was described to me by someone very, very close to the M.I. as "an attack." I have the documentation. That's not false witness. I stand by it.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

Kerry Daubert John, don't play their games!
11 hours ago · Like · 2

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - "I was told directly by people directly associated with the M.I. that it was an attack piece....unbecoming of the M.I. I was also told that the proposed title was something to the effect of, "Lying Mormon Stories that John Dehlin has told to me." ' - Wonderful, you've also been told by the people directly involved in this matter that a) Dr. Peterson comissioned *nothing* against you and b) the piece written about "you" was NOT about you but of your movement Mormon Stories and it was merely a review of it. Not a "hit piece" of any sort. So, if this is true than what you reported to your General Authority friend was false. That would mean that you bore false witness against your neighbor and brother in the gospel. - "DP had every chance to send the article to me and others and disabuse of of the claim...but he didn't." - He owes you nothing, sir. You have no authority to demand anything from him, especially something that does not exist like a "hit piece". Can you take a moment and review between our posts who has given the benefit of doubt to whom? While I find much of your account hard to accept at face value, I still give you the benefit ofthe dout. While I do not fully accept what you say I still trust what you say. That, sir, would be a great starting point on your part to reconcile against whom you consider and have treated as your enemy. - "So I stand by my understanding of the situation...and I trust my friends who gave me the information...one of them who worked directly for the M.I." - Even after you get a first-hand sourced testimony saying there was no hit piece about you? That seems incredulous to me especially since you admit to be going on a second or even third hand source.
11 hours ago · Like · 1

John Dehlin Darren - My main source was a direct, first-hand source -- and it was explicitly referred to as an "attack" piece.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

Darren Zechiel Kerry Daubert - "I am a medical doctor and even in our petty world of bickering it pales to how you are acting." - Were this my Facebook / blog I'd have very direct words towards you as well. Since it is not all I'll say is, dude, give it a rest.
11 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - Was it the one who commissioned the "hit piece" or who wrote it?
11 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin It was a direct source to DP and the M.I.
11 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel So your source is neither the one who commissioned the "hit piece" nor the one who wrote it, correct?
11 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin Oh...and he definitely read the article. So yes...someone who directly read the article firsthand told me that it was an attack piece.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

Darren Zechiel And your source who read the article was neither the person who comissioned the "hit piece" nor the one who wrote it, correct?
11 hours ago · Like

Kerry Daubert I'll get right on the giving it a rest Darren. Hubris Hubris Hubris!! Why don't you enlighten me to what the purpose of this rehash? What resolution could possible come out of airing this publicly?
11 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin It was someone who read the piece.
11 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin He also referred to it as a "screed" and as an "expose." He said that it had a "sneer"ing tone. All direct quotes. Also used the word "snide."
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

Darren Zechiel So, it was neither the person who comissioned the "hit piece" nor the person who wrote the "hit pice" and when you hear first-hand from the person you accuse of comissioning it say that he comissioned no such thing, ever, you still believe your source who read it, correct?
11 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Darren Zechiel On a related side not, Mormon Dialogue currently has at least three people who have readthe article say blatantly clear that thearticle written about Mormon Stories was not a hit piece. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/599 ... 1209224039

http://www.mormondialogue.org
http://www.mormondialogue.org
John Dehlin Responds By Podcast - posted in General Discussions: sethpayne, on ,...
See More
11 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

John Dehlin Darren - I was informed of the article by someone who had read it, who was directly associated w/ the M.I., and he described it as "an attack," "an expose" and he used the words "screed," "sneer," and "snide" in his description of it. He also said that, "Acrimony, confusion, and darkness will be the fruits if this is published." That's all you (or anyone) really needs to know to justify why I referred to it as a "hit piece." I had (and still have) every reason to believe that it was (at least at the time) exactly that. A hit piece. I'm hardly bearing false witness.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin Darren - I guess "hit piece" is a matter of opinion....but I trust my source more than I do yours. And if ya'll had the courage/integrity to release the version my source read (not a watered-down version)...I bet that most fair-minded people would agree with him and me. DP or Greg Smith could do it at any time, you know. I wonder they don't?
11 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - Your omission is blatanly clear that you're relying on a person who read an article and this person is neither the person who you accused of comissioning the article, nor who wrote the article, and after you hear directly from the person you accuse of having comissioned the article say that he never comissioned the article and more than a few other peole I've have read on Mormon Dialogue first hand and one right here on this thread say it was not comissioned by anyone, let alone Daniel Peterson, you, John Dehlin, trust the person who read the article and tell you that Daniel Peterson commisioned the article. Quaint!!! Is there a phrase "admission by omission"? If not can I copywrite it and get a nuikel everytime someone says or writes that phrase? I'd become so obscenly rich that I could buy Facebook right from under Zuckerburg.
11 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin John, I'm not going to believe your story until you give us the name of the person from the MI that unethically leaked confidential information to you. I believe that person [whose name I know] described it as a "hit piece" to you only LATER, after you already initiated your attempt to have the article censored. He had not read the article at the time you were already complaining to your friends about the "hit piece."
11 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel John Dehlin - "He also said that, "Acrimony, confusion, and darkness will be the fruits if this is published." - John, please, you're scaring the women.
11 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin Not acrimony! Thank God we've been spared SO much acrimony in the past eight months.
11 hours ago · Like · 1

Darren Zechiel William Hamblin - "He had not read the article at the time you were already complaining to your friends about the "hit piece."" - I recall that argument made, or at least made along those lines, on Mormon Dialogue though that thread is long past and It would take me some time to dig it up. I don't want to strain myself the rest of this evening. Too late to do so.
11 hours ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin William Hamblin - I just now went back to review the documentation.

I was informed on March 21st by this person directly associated with the M.I. that an "attack" article was written about me by the M.I. He referred to it as "embarrassing," and apologized to me for it in advance.

I was informed by another associate about the article on March 25th. He referred to it as a "hit piece." I emailed Dr. Peterson and my GA acquaintance that same day, on March 25, 2012.

Somewhere between March 29th and 30th the piece was described to me verbally.

On March 30th I was informed that my source had read the article (on or before March 26th), and he described it then with words like "screed," "expose," "sneer," and "snide."

For the record, I called the GA to discuss the piece AFTER gathering all the data.....so my conversation w/ the GA was based on information given to me by someone who had read the piece by that point.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

Darren Zechiel "I believe that person [whose name I know] described it as a "hit piece" to you only LATER, after you already initiated your attempt to have the article censored." - That means that William Hamblin is a first-hand source, connected to MI (at least at the time) who is saying that it wasn't a hit piece. Hmmmm, are you sure you're on the right side on this, John? You rely on a person who told you Daniel Peterson that Daniel Peterson comissionmed a "hit piece" on you, Daniel Peterson say he did not comission a hit piece on you, nor anything else on you, and counting Hamblin and the three others I linked, that's four first-hand witnesses saying that Daniel Peterson did not commission a hit piece on you nor was the hit piece a hit piece but a review of Mormon Studeis and one person I liked, Wiki Wonka, says it had nothing to do with you, John.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin Dehlin: "And if ya'll had the courage/integrity to release the version my source read (not a watered-down version)...I bet that most fair-minded people would agree with him and me." Why do you keep compounding your slander and lies?! It's astonishing. I read the original version, and I've read the final version. There is no "watering down." It is straight-forward, hard-hitting and critical, but it is not a hit piece. It is a detailed analysis of your IDEAS found on Mormon Stories. Period.
10 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin William - Release the version my friend read, and we can all judge for ourselves if you tell the truth.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin Get the name John, or it is basely allegations. No more secret sources please. No more rumor, innuendo, slander and lies. If you can't document it, don't say it.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin Release your expose of the Second Anointing and we can all judge for ourselves.
10 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin William - I am telling the truth. I'll let my friend decide if/how/when he wants to go public w/ his side of the story. But I stand by mine. It's all in email.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin See, you're calling me a liar again. It's outrageous! You preen about your moral high ground and how Christlike you are, and yet constantly attack the morals of people with whom you disagree (unchrist-like is your favorite term), instead of engaging ideas.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin I'm telling the truth too.
10 hours ago · Like

Darren Zechiel Me too.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

William Hamblin And we've got it all documented too.
10 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin I don't think I called you a liar.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin "William - Release the version my friend read, and we can all judge for ourselves if you tell the truth." clearly implying you don't believe me.
10 hours ago · Like · 1

John Dehlin That's different than calling someone a liar. I believe that reasonable minds will conclude that the original article was a hit piece if they have the chance to read it.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

Darren Zechiel God bless you and yours, John.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3

John Dehlin Thanks, Darren. You and yours too.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin The person in question had not read the article on March 21.
10 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin He had read it by March 26th (just verified). And he knew enough about it by the 21st to call it an "attack," refer to it as "embarrassing," and to apologize to me for it in advance.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

William Hamblin You wrote the GA friend falsely characterizing the article on March 25 at which time neither the mole, nor you had read the article.
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin You are calling me a liar by claiming I am lying about whether there have been substantive changes and whether the article has been "watered down." I've read version 1, and the last version, and there is no "watering down."
10 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin Wrong. My friend had told me it was a "concerted attack" on March 21, and referred to it as "an embarrassment" at that time. I had every credible reason to believe that it was a "hit piece." Not a false characterization at all, based on the information I had. Plus the email to the GA and DP was an inquiry as to whether the report was true...I was trying to get information. DP could have easily cleared the air by sharing the article at that time...on March 25th...but he chose not to do so.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin William - I have no idea if there have been changes...I can only imagine/suppose/speculate. We won't know until it is released (the original version, that is). I never called you a liar about this.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin Again...before I ever called the GA, the piece had been described to me (by someone who had read the piece, who was super close to the M.I.) with words like "screed," "expose," "sneer," and "snide."
10 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin Original title was "Dubious Mormon Stories That John Dehlin Tells To Me". Dubious is not lying. It means doubtful or uncertain. Your friend had not read it on 21 March. You had no basis whatsoever to characterize the article in any way at all.
10 hours ago · Like · 1

William Hamblin Off to bed
10 hours ago · Like

John Dehlin William - My friend (connected to the M.I.) had told me it was a "concerted attack" on March 21, and referred to it as "an embarrassment" at that time. I had every credible reason to believe that it was a "hit piece" -- based on the information I had from a SUPER credible source. Plus the email to the GA and DP was an inquiry as to whether the report was true...I was trying to get information. DP could have easily cleared the air by sharing the article at that time...on March 25th...but he chose not to do so.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

William Hamblin One last thing I realized. If you indeed had someone who had read the article by March 25 and informed you of its contents, then you knew with certainty that there was no mention of the death of the missionary incident. Therefore your accusations that the article attacked you over the death of the missionary were knowingly false, since there was nothing in any version of the article about that.
10 hours ago · Like · 1

John Dehlin William - Those accusations came from Lou at the UVU conference, and I reported them to the GA via phone AFTER speaking with Lou at the conference. For me, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. But I never received many details about what was or wasn't in the article. Just descriptions of it like "sneer" "snide" "screed" and "expose." I was sincerely and genuinely worried that Lou would insert those allegations into the article before it was printed.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

Mechelle Butterfield Wingle I may not see everything through the same lenses as John Dehlin but I believe in this case he is correct. Apologetics is great in the defense of the church and gospel. It is when they take the offense that it becomes just that – offensive.
10 hours ago · Like · 6

Elizabeth Kay "me thinks thou dost protest too much..." seems a little fishy to me that someone would be proclaiming the article's innocence so intently, yet is unwilling to divulge the contents to prove it...couldn't john have signed a confidentiality agreement to preview the article written about him and his Mormon stories, thereby proving or disproving any slanderous or false accusations? if the article is not an attack on his personal character, and it was shown to him at the time he requested it, it could have eliminated this argument and even elicited an apology from the man. instead, the time before the article is released will only raise more suspicion on both of you, and for me, since johns concern is warranted as the article DOES have his name in it...i would have to lay my suspicions more heavily on the persons refusing to do anything (besides argue) to back up their story. is john overreacting? possibly...but all you had to do was show him how wrong he was...but you couldn't...like i said...me thinks thou dost protest too much...
9 hours ago · Like · 8

Tom English Let's see the original article and put it to bed.

I remember attending a seminar held by the late Stephen R Covey a few years ago in which he asserted that light is the most powerful cleaning and growth agent.

Time for some light in this situation and less cloaks and daggers.
7 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2

Marty Zobel Seriously?? Mormons arguing with Mormons. Get over yourselves. No one has heard of you outside Utah. Not good to be divisive.
4 hours ago · Like

Neal Douglas The ridiculous tone and dialogue exhibited by BYU professors and apologists on this thread is proof positive that apologetics needs to die. Based on the blatant lack of Christianity you display, I wouldn't give a SHRED of credibility to anything you write. The light is not in you...
3 hours ago · Like · 4

Julianne Dehlin Hatton I don't have a problem with this discussion. These are good people discussing important concepts (in the bigger picture). This needs to happen.
3 hours ago · Like

Andrew Mills Mark B Brown. I know that BCC isn't a monolith, like all other organizations, there is a standard deviation, an average, and a mode. I just described the where the average and mode lie, that the statistical outliers...
2 hours ago · Like

William Hamblin I am perplexed by why John originally went to a GA attempting to suppress and censor the article, and now insists that precisely the article he wanted suppressed needs to be released. If it needed to be suppressed then, why does it need to be released now. Perhaps you should write Bradford and the Mole and ask them to publish the article. It's truly nutty.
about an hour ago · Like

Daniel Peterson John, if you dislike "acrimony" so much, why are you seemingly so bent on whipping it up? Nothing on this matter has changed recently. What motivates this new round of accusations and personal attacks from you? I've scarcely thought about you, let alone said anything about you, for a long, long time.
32 minutes ago · Like

Edited post to Add:

William Hamblin John likes to call other people to be Christlike.
43 minutes ago · Like

Gary Parker THIS> "The ridiculous tone and dialogue exhibited by BYU professors and apologists on this thread is proof positive that apologetics needs to die. Based on the blatant lack of Christianity you display, I wouldn't give a SHRED of credibility to anything you write. The light is not in you..."
35 minutes ago · Like · 2

Eric Wadley I don't have a horse in this race or care to dive into the whole matter and discussion - but I will say that - ANDREW MILL'S -earliest comments in this thread are mean spirited and distasteful. The tone is childish and sad to read. Whether you are right or not (which again is not my concern) your language and attitude discredit you to bystanders.
31 minutes ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin William - I honestly don't care if you release the article or not. But if you do release an updated version...and then claim that it wasn't a hit piece...the only ethical thing to do seems to be to release the version that was referred to as a hit piece...not a watered down version.
28 minutes ago · Edited · Like

John Dehlin Daniel Peterson - I came on to provide feedback to your original post.

Then William Hamblin launched in with this, "John, if you are really interested in peace, why don't you begin by publicly withdrawing you repeated slanders against Dan that: 1- the GAs were behind his dismissal at NAMIRS, 2- that Dan "commission" the Greg Smith piece, and that 3- the Smith article is nothing but an ad hominem hit piece against you. (I've read it, you haven't. Only after you've actually read it, should you feel free to comment on it.)"

That's how it happened. Maybe you missed the earlier comments on your post.

And maybe you can ask William and Lou why they won't let it die.

And I maintain that you are harming apologetics, the M.I., and the church by attacking the M.I. now. Everyone knows that a key to success is to divide your enemy. Ya'll need to come together.
23 minutes ago · Edited · Like

William Hamblin John, the only ethical thing to do is believe us and stop calling us liars until you actually have a single shred of evidence to support your claims. Do you have any?
24 minutes ago · Like

John Dehlin William - I have tons of evidence. You, on the other hand, split hairs.
23 minutes ago · Like

William Hamblin Produce your evidence. Not second hand hearsay or speculation. Hard evidence.