Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_mormonstories]

I honestly hope that things continue to go well for you, and for your Mormonstories project.

That is really all I have left to say on this topic.

You have my sincere thanks, liz3564.

[_Kishkumen]

Your problem is that today you went from being an honest broker to being an attack dog bent on change. And, as I have pointed out where I post with my own name on the other board, your brand and its value have just been flushed down the toilet with your hand on the lever. Now you're just another Sunstone. A good Mormon often won't read Sunstone just because of what it is.

Look here, Bot:

In this instance, I was informed of the "hit piece" as THEY called it...not me....by people favorable to the M.I. . THEY told me that this was another one of those types of pieces. THEY were concerned and were fighting its publication. FROM THE INSIDE.

Hey, Yahoo, guess what, buddy? As John has said, more than once now (but you know that), HE WAS CONTACTED BY SOMEONE ****INSIDE THE NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE****

****IT WAS THIS INSIDER WHO CHARACTERIZED THE ARTICLE AS A HIT PIECE****

So, Yahoo, this is not simply about a "Sunstoner" with a well placed buddy in the LDS hierarchy. This is also about people at the heart of the Neal Maxwell Institute, the place where the piece was going to be published, WHO DID NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED.

John did what almost anyone in his position would have done. DON'T BLAME HIM for protecting himself in a perfectly legitimate way.

When are you going to catch on to the fact that fellow LDS scholars at BYU, including people at the Maxwell Institute, and General Authorities of the LDS Church, do not approve of the type of piece Greg Smith wrote?

They have as much right to disapprove as others have a right to approve. If the shoe had been on the other foot, many apologists would have lined up to high five each other for the way the Lord's system had triumphed again. You guys are simply angry because you don't like John Dehlin, don't like what he stands for, and you want to see him marginalized.

Some people in the Lord's university and among the Lord's servants don't agree with you. You just have to deal with that for the moment.

Like I said there, good luck in getting the likes of Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens to ever take you seriously again. All you're going to have to applaud you are the unhappy people who post here. You're going to be limited to digging up a counselor in a stake presidency who left 20 years ago. Oh wait, you did that one.

I trust Richard Bushman's and Terryl Givens' judgment a heck of a lot more than I trust yours. God bless them.

[_Willy Law]

But to then put the good name of mormonstories in the public eye so that you can piss all over it, well, that's another matter isn't it. Was it Will who called it self-immolation? How true, how true. Like I said there, good luck in getting the likes of Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens to ever take you seriously again. All you're going to have to applaud you are the unhappy people who post here. You're going to be limited to digging up a counselor in a stake presidency who left 20 years ago. Oh wait, you did that one.

John basically now has the backing, or at least the support, of a member of the seventy and an apostle and you think that is going to hurt his ability to get "faithful" members? I see just the opposite happening. I see rational people like Bushman seeing the angry apologists for what they are. I think they will be more willing now to speak with someone that has tried to include the church in his podcast, not the group that is trying to exclude and demonize outliers.

[_Doctor Scratch]

DCP seems to be saying that the GAs actually didn't intervene at all:

I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.

It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.

But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.

I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.

I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.

(emphasis added)

So, to what extent was any GA involved in this, then? John has been saying that one or more of the GAs "agreed" that the article needed to be "scuttled," but DCP is denying that he was ever contacted any any GA. So did the GA go to Gerald Bradford or Hoskisson or someone like that instead? Or did the GA merely respond to John, who then forwarded the GA's comment to DCP? Or, was Dan just sufficiently terrified at the notion that a GA *might* get involved, so he pulled the article of his own volition?

[_Tator]

I'm still just beside myself as to why the apologists would have wanted to target Dehlin in the first place. Why?

This has been my question from the very beginning. Can an apologist give me an answer?

[_Kishkumen]

This is what I have to say about his message:

Shrug.

I don't care. I care about John not getting slammed through a journal published by BYU.

Beyond that, my reaction is, "meh."

Well, I will say this. I will say that it is good to know that Daniel did not have to deal with the stress of a rebuke by his bosses, whoever they are, in addition to other stressful events in his personal life.

But other than that, meh.

I think that I have to comment about one or two fictional claims that are, from what I can tell, becoming part of the critics' established narrative about The Affair of the Essay that None of the Critics Have Seen.

It's being said, for instance, that one or more apostles reviewed the manuscript and found it objectionable, after which -- and at least one critic seems to have felt some distinctly sadistic excitement in contemplating the imagined scene -- they rebuked me, dressed me down, and ordered me not to publish the essay. This is said to be a stunning setback not only for me but for the Maxwell Institute, and FAIR, and, I guess, evil people like me throughout the world.

But, so far as I know, no General Authority has ever seen or read the paper.

I have no idea whether an apostle was involved at any stage in this. It's possible, I suppose, but, if that's the case, I know nothing about it.

I've been rebuked by no apostle, nor by any other General Authority. In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have a good relationship with members of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and, now, the Presiding Bishopric. This has been so for years. I have no reason to believe that it's changed in any way at all.

[_Nomomo]

DCP seems to be saying that the GAs actually didn't intervene at all:

In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.

However, when he was advised not to publish the article, he complied.

[_Yoda]

Your problem is that today you went from being an honest broker to being an attack dog bent on change. And, as I have pointed out where I post with my own name on the other board, your brand and its value have just been flushed down the toilet with your hand on the lever. Now you're just another Sunstone. A good Mormon often won't read Sunstone just because of what it is.

I may be in the minority, but I don't give a flying fig that you went for protection from your General Authority pal. By all means, use it if you have it. You have as much a First Amendment right to do that as the evildoing apologists have to say bad things about you.

But to then put the good name of mormonstories in the public eye so that you can piss all over it, well, that's another matter isn't it. Was it Will who called it self-immolation? How true, how true. Like I said there, good luck in getting the likes of Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens to ever take you seriously again. All you're going to have to applaud you are the unhappy people who post here. You're going to be limited to digging up a counselor in a stake presidency who left 20 years ago. Oh wait, you did that one.

P.S. Forgive me if it's a tad bit hard to take seriously your claim of concern for Mormon Stories' good name. Hard to take you seriously.

Don't worry, John. No one here takes Bot seriously.

He is our own little pet troll. Please do not feed him. He is like a puppy dog. He has already eaten his food, but he just can't help begging for treats that he really doesn't deserve.

[_Kishkumen]

In fact, no General Authority of any type has communicated with me about this matter in any way, neither in person, nor by telephone, nor by letter, nor by email.

I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.

However, when he was advised not to publish the article, he complied.

Carla Ogden contacted him.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Uh, yeah. Something is not adding up.