Peterson exacts revenge for Dehlin hit piece humiliation

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The irony, of course, is Mr. Peterson is the leading heretic in the Church. He better be careful because human nature has a tendency to turn on its own kind in short order.

- VRDRC

[_beastie]

I am a bit out of the loop here. Did I misunderstand the title of this thread, or did Dehlin write some sort of "hit piece" somewhere for which Peterson is exacting revenge?

Aside from that question, my comment is this. I think the church leadership is at a crossroads of sorts. The reality is that the number of members who will be exposed to the controversial aspects of church history and/or problematic aspects of church claims will continue to grow, thanks to the internet. Those same members will have to find some way to resolve these issues. The question is will church leadership take Dehlin's route, and accept as worthy members even those who have had to readjust their basic beliefs to remain active participants in the LDS church, or will they take Peterson/Schryver's route, and view those same members as enemies who should be sniffed out and dismissed?

I have no stake in the matter at all, but I will be interested in which route the church leadership decides to take. I think how they choose to resolve this issue might be predictive of the future of the LDS church in certain ways.

[Guest]

I am a bit out of the loop here. Did I misunderstand the title of this thread, or did Dehlin write some sort of "hit piece" somewhere for which Peterson is exacting revenge?

Greg Smith recently wrote a hit piece on John Dehlin that the Maxwell Institute was about to publish
Insiders at BYU alerted John to the existence of Smith's article
John contacted DCP to ask him about the article but got no useful response
John has friends in high places and asked them to intervene to block publication
An apostle contacted the head of the Maxwell Institute and asked that the article not be published.
DCP was ticked off by the intervention

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23840&hilit=dehlin

[_Chap]

I am a bit out of the loop here. Did I misunderstand the title of this thread, or did Dehlin write some sort of "hit piece" somewhere for which Peterson is exacting revenge?

Aside from that question, my comment is this. I think the church leadership is at a crossroads of sorts. The reality is that the number of members who will be exposed to the controversial aspects of church history and/or problematic aspects of church claims will continue to grow, thanks to the internet. Those same members will have to find some way to resolve these issues. The question is will church leadership take Dehlin's route, and accept as worthy members even those who have had to readjust their basic beliefs to remain active participants in the LDS church, or will they take Peterson/Schryver's route, and view those same members as enemies who should be sniffed out and dismissed?

I have no stake in the matter at all, but I will be interested in which route the church leadership decides to take. I think how they choose to resolve this issue might be predictive of the future of the LDS church in certain ways.

I predict that the church will make the following calculation:

What is the net likely loss of tithing that will result from retaining or expelling a publicly doubting member (PDM)? Clearly that will depend on whether or not PDM is a high-income tithe payer, as well as on the effect of his or her retention or expulsion on retaining, gaining or losing other tithe payers.

I can't think of any more likely basis for decisions at the top levels of the church, which is almost wholly filled by men whose lifetime training is in business decision-making.

The theological paranoia of low-grade members like Schryver (whoever his daddy was) simply will not come into it. Follow the money, and you are following the Lord.

[_beastie]

Greg Smith recently wrote a hit piece on John Dehlin that the Maxwell Institute was about to publish
Insiders at BYU alerted John to the existence of Smith's article
John contacted DCP to ask him about the article but got no useful response
John has friends in high places and asked them to intervene to block publication
An apostle contacted the head of the Maxwell Institute and asked that the article not be published.
DCP was ticked off by the intervention

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23840&hilit=dehlin

Fascinating! Thanks.

[_beastie]

I predict that the church will make the following calculation:

What is the net likely loss of tithing that will result from retaining or expelling a publicly doubting member (PDM)? Clearly that will depend on whether or not PDM is a high-income tithe payer, as well as on the effect of his or her retention or expulsion on retaining, gaining or losing other tithe payers.

I can't think of any more likely basis for decisions at the top levels of the church, which is almost wholly filled by men whose lifetime training is in business decision-making.

The theological paranoia of low-grade members like Schryver (whoever his daddy was) simply will not come into it. Follow the money, and you are following the Lord.

I'm sure you are correct, but I think they will also be attempting to calculate the overall possible loss of membership, aside from tithing. Like all super-organisms, the church is all about survival and reproduction.

[_Infymus]

Follow the money, and you are following the Lord.

I've heard it said so many different ways, but never quite like this. The way you've written it, is, well, "icky". Well said.

[_Chap]

Follow the money, and you are following the Lord.

I've heard it said so many different ways, but never quite like this. The way you've written it, is, well, "icky". Well said.

More, MORE!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I couldn't see the point of supporting this kind of nonsense if I were a tithe paying member. No wonder I tapped out 11 years ago...

- VRDRC

[_Analytics]

What's puzzling to all of us is that William Schryver claims it was all his idea, and that he and DCP are the wolf-slaying team: "… He Did Go About Secretly … Seeking To Destroy The Church …"

I have no doubt that it was Schryver's idea just as he claimed. What's kind of pathetic is the way that Schryver wanted public recognition for his contribution to this idea. He really seeks validation from his friendship with Peterson.

What I wonder is who are the wolves they are alluding to? Is the wolf Dehlin, or the GA who is protecting him?