Anonymous Source Confirms Hit Piece

[_Bazooka]

The unpublished Schryver boy seems to confirm that "hit piece" nature of the Greg Smith article...

From MDDB "Dehlin Demands Publication Of Greg Smith's Review Of Mormon Stories"

I am confident they won't claim it has been sanitized. Why?  Because, first of all, it won't have been.  But, most importantly, it's because, in their eyes, it will appear to be the "hit piece" it was always made out to be.  

Of course, when we read the thing, we don't see it that way.  But I guarantee they will.  It is, after all, a devastating exposé of the true nature and tactics of John Dehlin and his mormonstories franchise.  Therefore I believe they will not react to it in the way normal, faithful Latter-day Saints would.  Nope.  In fact, I'll bet they will instantly label it the most contemptible example of FARMS-style viciousness they have ever seen, and they will then quickly exhaust the English language of its entire stock of laudatory adjectives in their attempts to shower upon Jerry Bradford the encomium they believe he deserves for having bravely stood up to the FARMS Hydra and thus prevented the publication of such a shameful specimen of ad hominem excess.

[_dblagent007]

My understanding is that the original title was "Lying Mormon Stories that John Dehlin Tells to Me." I mean, c'mon. With a title like that, how could it be anything but a hit piece?

Where did you hear this? And Kish, would your source know anything about whether or not this really was the original title?

This came from the infamous Facebook thread on DCP's wall. John D said the person who originally warned him about the hit piece told him it had this title. The title is a play on the words of the primary song "Book of Mormon Stories." The first line in the primary song is "Book of Mormon Stories that my teacher tells to me."

In the Facebook thread, John D asked DCP and Hamblin to confirm that this was the original title but they clammed about it, which pretty much serves to confirm that this was the title.

[_harmony]

So, in my impression, the worse the hit-piece is, the more it clearly demonstrates the vile hatred these guys have for someone they consider an enemy. Their hubris is their undoing.

I don't think it's hatred, per se. Anyway, not just hatred, and not hatred from all of them. Hamblin seems to be coming unglued, but the rest of them not so much. The thing is, they've been disrespected by people who in the past have always respected them. And they see the source of the disrespect as beneath them, both professionally and spiritually. And combine that with the unpleasant surprise attack from their peers, and they're just spinning and spinning, out of balance now.

If I understand Dehlin's logic for not having it published originally, it was that such a piece would do harm to the Maxwell Institute and thus BYU and the church -- and he actually cared that it not be published not to protect himself, but rather, to protect the institution. Now that the institution is clearly not behind the hit piece, then having it published simply will demonstrate that the mopologists at "mormoninterpreter" are clearly in defiance of the direction of the church at present.

I really don't think that the piece can damage Dehlin. The worse it is, the more it damages the mopologist community.

Which may be why it's not been published yet, by the new Old Guard. Surely calmer heads will eventually prevail. If not... well, all actions have consequences. Publishing something the church would prefer to keep under wraps has led to excommunications of members on equal ground as our dear professors in the past.

[_Equality]

We would have all been a little smarter if the piece were published when it should have been published.

No doubt. I mean, some of us on this board couldn't possibly get any dumber.

[_Wiki Wonka]

This came from the infamous Facebook thread on DCP's wall. John D said the person who originally warned him about the hit piece told him it had this title. The title is a play on the words of the primary song "Book of Mormon Stories." The first line in the primary song is "Book of Mormon Stories that my teacher tells to me."

In the Facebook thread, John D asked DCP and Hamblin to confirm that this was the original title but they clammed about it, which pretty much serves to confirm that this was the title.

1) The original title was "Dubious 'Mormon' Stories that John Dehlin Tells to Me". I don't care for the title, simply because I don't like titles that include a person's name in them. I don't know if it was going to be changed for publication or not.

2) It is a review of Mormon Stories, or, perhaps more accurately, the Mormon Stories "movement." In doing so, it extensively quotes John Dehlin and explores his publicly stated motivations behind Mormon Stories (and, if I recall, talks a bit about some material that was posted on StayLDS). There are quotes from an interview with the Larsens. Since the essay also includes quotes from Dehlin's public Facebook feed (unlike Dan Peterson's private Facebook feed, which was recently copied to this board), Kishkumen will, without a doubt, consider it a hit piece.

3) Some will view it as a well-documented analysis. Some will view it as a "hit piece." I haven't actually expressed a public opinion on that aspect. I personally prefer to write about the way people use and interpret sources and citations rather than explore their personal motivations. I prefer analyzing facts rather than people.

4) The first major misunderstanding which I was attempting to correct is that that the essay was commissioned by Dr. Peterson. Dehlin firmly believes that, and Dr. Peterson firmly denies it. I personally believe that one of the two people in the chain of information between the Maxwell Institute and Dehlin made this assumption, which is why Dehlin so firmly believes it. Unfortunately, the person who inserted that assumption has declined to publicly set the record straight, instead allowing that major misunderstanding to continue to fester. That person, whoever they are, is doing both Dehlin and Dr. Peterson a grave disservice, and if they had any decency, they would publicly correct that error now.

5) The second major misunderstanding which I was attempting to correct is that the essay ever included anything about a missionary death, or anything about Dehlin's mission at all. This was a misunderstanding that resulted from the conversation with Lou Midgley. Dehlin has stated that he was worried that a reference to this would be inserted into the paper, but Lou never edited the paper, and Lou never implied that Dehlin was responsible for the death.

6) I have always been of the opinion (and have stated it several times over the past number of months to people privately) that it is unfortunate that Dehlin wasn't sent a copy of the paper once it was ready to be published in the MSR. It would have avoided some of the misunderstanding that has spun out of control. I understand that this is not standard procedure, but in this case it would have helped.

7) Once the article was rejected by the MSR, ownership reverted fully to Greg Smith. The only reason that it hasn't appeared since then is because Greg chose not release it.

8) Whether the article were published or not did not make a difference to me. My primary interest in seeing it come to light now is so that the discussion can be about the actual content of the article rather than the speculation about what it contains.

9) I had not formed a personal opinion about John Dehlin's work until now - none of his work has impacted my family members who left the Church in either a positive or negative way (they haven't heard of him or Mormon Stories). I was one of those at FAIR who was always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, his comments about FAIR and the apologists who work so hard to help people compelled me to speak out. His characterization of FAIR is highly offensive to me, and I'm pretty hard to offend. Unfortunately, his passive/aggressive characterization of FAIR and apologists in general as "thuggish" has caused me to form a negative opinion of him now. His comments on the Facebook thread were extremely disappointing to me. I note that he has now deleted them all.

I have more important things to work on, and this entire Dehlin thing has been distracting, so I apologize for not responding further. I'm not trying to be rude, but I need to take a sabbatical from message boards for a while and work on some things that truly mean something to me.

WW

[_Kishkumen]

Where did you hear this? And Kish, would your source know anything about whether or not this really was the original title?

I can certainly ask.

Dan doesn't usually trade in "crude epithets" himself, but his friends are another story, and I have never seen him speak out against or correct one of them.

(Minus the time he spoke out against Bob Crockett for denouncing William Schryver. Go figure.)

Yes, he has been especially protective of William Schryver, even at times when he claimed he barely knew the man. In any case, he rarely if ever calls his friends on their bad behavior, and even published examples in the Review, whereas he expects us to run a tight ship on the free speech board MDB. Clearly he has no right to expect any such thing.

[Guest]

1) The original title was "Dubious 'Mormon' Stories that John Dehlin Tells to Me". I don't care for the title, simply because I don't like titles that include a person's name in them. I don't know if it was going to be changed for publication or not.

Yeah, I think it is fair to say that the title certainly gives the impression, at the outset, that the article is a "hit piece."

2) It is a review of Mormon Stories, or, perhaps more accurately, the Mormon Stories "movement." In doing so, it extensively quotes John Dehlin and explores his publicly stated motivations behind Mormon Stories (and, if I recall, talks a bit about some material that was posted on StayLDS). There are quotes from an interview with the Larsens. Since the essay also includes quotes from Dehlin's public Facebook feed (unlike Dan Peterson's private Facebook feed, which was recently copied to this board), Kishkumen will, without a doubt, consider it a hit piece.

It sounds like it is a review of Mormon Stories in the same way Greg Smith's piece on Mormons for Marriage was a review of that page. In the end, the focus was, for much of the piece, squarely on Laura Compton, and it insinuated truly awful things about her motivations. So, I fairly and accurately called it a hit piece, even though I am sure that on technical grounds you might give it a pass as a review of Mormons for Marriage. Of course, it was framed as such.

And, for the record, my source, who is eminently reasonable and fair, considered it a hit piece. If my source did, then I would say it undoubtedly is.

3) Some will view it as a well-documented analysis. Some will view it as a "hit piece." I haven't actually expressed a public opinion on that aspect. I personally prefer to write about the way people use and interpret sources and citations rather than explore their personal motivations. I prefer analyzing facts rather than people.

Reading between the lines, I can see that what you are saying is that this is, like the Compton piece, an article that focuses on the motivations of people, mostly John Dehlin. Undoubtedly it concludes very negative things about those motivations. And, I think it is fair to say that Greg Smith has a track record when it comes to reading the worst into the motivations of others.

Congratulations for finding the most diplomatic way you could to confirm that this article is a hit piece without appearing to do so.

4) The first major misunderstanding which I was attempting to correct is that that the essay was commissioned by Dr. Peterson.

I doubt Peterson commissioned the piece, but I don't think that really matters all that much in the larger scheme of things. Greg Smith knew he had a ready and willing outlet for lobbing his personal attacks at other Latter-day Saints, so he sent his essay there. The editor seems never to have considered for a single moment that such essays, attributing the worst motives to people, were inappropriate for publication from a university campus. I think it is clear that they are. We can debate whether apologetics are appropriate or not, but I think there is no question that attacking other church members, outside of priesthood channels, in a Church university publication, is totally inappropriate.

6) I have always been of the opinion (and have stated it several times over the past number of months to people privately) that it is unfortunate that Dehlin wasn't sent a copy of the paper once it was ready to be published in the MSR. It would have avoided some of the misunderstanding that has spun out of control. I understand that this is not standard procedure, but in this case it would have helped.

Well, Rodney Meldrum and Laura Compton probably did not receive such consideration. Doubtless John Dehlin would not have either. All this demonstrates is that the practices of the Review under the editor of the time were inevitably going to lead to these kinds of problems. Finally someone intervened to put a stop to these practices. The editor didn't see this as a problem, and now we see where that blindspot led.

8) Whether the article were published or not did not make a difference to me. My primary interest in seeing it come to light now is so that the discussion can be about the actual content of the article rather than the speculation about what it contains.

Sounds like the speculation is pretty much on target. You have done nothing in your description of it to change my opinion of its contents. In fact, you have confirmed my suspicions and the intelligence I have received from other people who have read it.

However, his comments about FAIR and the apologists who work so hard to help people compelled me to speak out. His characterization of FAIR is highly offensive to me, and I'm pretty hard to offend. Unfortunately, his passive/aggressive characterization of FAIR and apologists in general as "thuggish" has caused me to form a negative opinion of him now.

Gee, I guess that's what happens when people at FAIR collect intel on John Dehlin and put it up on the FAIR Wiki. Imagine him being upset with FAIR. I can see why you are so wounded by his completely unfair assessment of the organization that spied on him and then attacked him.

[_dblagent007]

9) I had not formed a personal opinion about John Dehlin's work until now - none of his work has impacted my family members who left the Church in either a positive or negative way (they haven't heard of him or Mormon Stories). I was one of those at FAIR who was always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, his comments about FAIR and the apologists who work so hard to help people compelled me to speak out. His characterization of FAIR is highly offensive to me, and I'm pretty hard to offend. Unfortunately, his passive/aggressive characterization of FAIR and apologists in general as "thuggish" has caused me to form a negative opinion of him now. His comments on the Facebook thread were extremely disappointing to me. I note that he has now deleted them all.

I think some apologists are very "thuggish" and some are not. I consider you, Bushman, and Givens apologists, but I don't think you are thuggish. However, the cabal of Peterson, Hamblin, Smith, Midgely, and Schryver definitely qualify as thuggish.

[_robuchan]

I don't how you guys can have so much energy arguing over whether or not an unpublished article is a hit piece or not.

[_Sethbag]

The problem with arguing over that is that the language contains a lot of linguistic imprecision, on purpose. Not to mention the term is metaphorical in the first place. It's not like you read this piece and a fist reaches out of the paper (or your screen) and punches you in the face.

Is Midgely a dickhead? I suppose you could argue that no, Midgely is not in fact the giant glans of a penis. So the answer is, inarguably, no. Misses the point, but constitutes a valid (if trivial) linguistic argument.