DiscussMormonism.com

For those who have heard the rumors about FARMS planned personal attack on John Dehlin, here is Peterson's denial:

DanV, your comments baffle me. I had already seen claims that the paper accused John Dehlin of some sort of responsibility for some sort of missionary death. I denied those claims. Now, I'm told, some people are claiming to have read the paper and to have SEEN that accusation in it. But these claims, too, are false. Somebody seems to be lying. The paper does not allege, and never has alleged, that John Dehlin was, or is, responsible for any missionary death. It mentions nothing of the kind. I've never heard anybody allege that John Dehlin is responsible in any way for any missionary death. I have no reason to believe that John Dehlin bears any responsibility for any missionary death. I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer than I already have. I'm being falsely accused of having made, or having allowed to be made, a very serious false accusation against John Dehlin. There is no truth in the accusation against me. And, so far as I know, nobody is making that false accusation against John Dehlin.

Normally, I wouldn't participate in the spread of this type of rumor, but thanks to Peterson's specific response to this rumor it's too late to be discrete.

No one actually saw Pahoran slip into the Sanctuary and pee in the Holy Water, and if asked this on Facebook, I will say that I don't think we teach that. I'm not going to be part of spreading this kind of rumor.

What we've now learned relative to the broad based exmo/post-mo narrative that has developed around this issue, is that John Dehlin expects to openly and publicly promote his subtle, kinder and gentler, Oprahfied form of apostasy while immune from any criticism, critique, or challenge to his beliefs and agenda.

Dehlin is, in very deed, a classic wolf hiding within soft wool and sweet words. He encourages those who desire to leave to do so, and encourages those who desire to stay within the Church as "cultural Mormons" to do so as well. What he is not encouraging anyone to do is accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. He is not encouraging anyone the be a Latter day Saint, in all of its facets and with all that implies as a system of religion and life philosophy.

At one and the same time he is the "ravening wolf" of scripture, and the pity puppy of those old seventies cardboard puzzles. He cries in anguish when he's challenged or confronted with his behavior and claims, while at the same time working hard to lead LDS out of the Church and into the politically correct secular city. He claims to have called a general authority when it became known to him that a exhaustively researched essay from NMI was about to be released that was critical of him and asked for something to be done about the essay - an essay that neither he, nor this alleged General Authority, nor any of NMI's critics to date have ever read.

His supporters and sycophants rend their garments and pour dust over their heads in righteous indignation at the slightest criticism of this man coming from faithful, believing LDS.

The protective cocoon of moral outrage thrown around Dehlin by his supporters (even as those who have been watching him for sometime can clearly see exactly what he's up to) as well as the, as of yet, undocumented and uncorroborated assertions he's made regarding the entire NMI fiasco, are strong evidence that, whatever else he may be able to do, he knows, and his supporters understand, that he cannot abide the heat of the day in the arena of ideas. He strikes from behind defilade, but he won't come out into the open and face open intellectual opposition and criticism from his beliefs and conduct as a member of the Church.

Dehlin is a classic modern liberal: his primary modus operandi when challenged is to silence and marginalize his critics from a safe place, without ever having to confront them openly in the arena of ideas.

The army of sycophants that surround and shield Dehlin are his real strength, not his ideas.

Dan Vogel wrote:For those who have heard the rumors about FARMS planned personal attack on John Dehlin, here is Peterson's denial:

This has all the makings of the Spaulding Manuscript redux.

Droopy wrote:...from any criticism, critique, or challenge...

<drink>

So is anyone inclined to believe Peterson's denial? Can anyone give me a reason to doubt Peterson?

John Harrison informed me that this was all discussed by John Dehlin himself on 10 May 2012 here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/

It's quite possible that Lou Midgley's accusations were conflated with Greg Smith's article based on this post by Dehlin.

Given this information, I'm inclined to believe Peterson.

Droopy wrote:What we've now learned relative to the broad based exmo/post-mo narrative that has developed around this issue, is that John Dehlin expects to openly and publicly promote his subtle, kinder and gentler, Oprahfied form of apostasy while immune from any criticism, critique, or challenge to his beliefs and agenda.

No we have not learned that. We have learned that John expected the paper to be a viscious personal attack along the lines of what you say above and below and in other posts here on this topic. He expected similar treatment to the likes of a Grant Palmer who was viciousl attacked by the apologists.

By the way I think it was a mistake for Dehlin to ask to have the paper squashed. I think he likely his MS platform would have prospered more and received more long term exposure from it.

Dehlin is, in very deed, a classic wolf hiding within soft wool and sweet words.

Is he? How many MS podcasts have you listened to Droopy? How much have you followed Dehlin? Do you think for yourself on this issue or is it your typical eveyone who differs slightly from your unber monolithic approach to Mormonsim and conservative politica is a boogy man that must be smeared and destroyed at all costs?

He encourages those who desire to leave to do so,

CFR. See you just proved you are spouting your typical tripe with no knowledge. John does not encourage anyome to do anything. He will support them if they ask in whatever path they choose. Stop lying Droopy.

and encourages those who desire to stay within the Church as "cultural Mormons" to do so as well.

Again he supports someoone in whatever path they choose. He is nuetral and does not encourage one way or the other.

What he is not encouraging anyone to do is accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. He is not encouraging anyone the be a Latter day Saint, in all of its facets and with all that implies as a system of religion and life philosophy.

Another lie. Is someone chooses that he will be happy to support them. Of course for you the above is the only option. All else is seek and destroy for you. What a sad way to live in such a beauttiful and diverse world.

At one and the same time he is the "ravening wolf" of scripture, and the pity puppy of those old seventies cardboard puzzles.

Did you have a troubled teen period Droopy. You so often bring up the seventies and sixties when attacking others your loathe.

He claims to have called a general authority when it became known to him that a exhaustively researched essay from NMI was about to be released that was critical of him and asked for something to be done about the essay - an essay that neither he, nor this alleged General Authority, nor any of NMI's critics to date have ever read.

You think he is lying about knowing some GA? Are you jealous that he has connections and you don't?

His supporters and sycophants rend their garments and pour dust over their heads in righteous indignation at the slightest criticism of this man coming from faithful, believing LDS.

I think there may be some of this. Others who follow him are quite critical of some of his approaches. Among the criticisms I see from some who may track Dehlin is that he tries to hard to help people stay. I have seen that on this board be some of the more hardened exmos.

Dan Vogel wrote:For those who have heard the rumors about FARMS planned personal attack on John Dehlin, here is Peterson's denial:

It was Louis Midgley at the Mormon Studies conference at UVU who raised the idea of some kind of connection between John Dehlin and the deaths of certain missionaries. Of course, there is no real connection (at least, that I can see) beyond the coincidence of the event occurring in John's mission while John was also a missionary there. I believe that the missionaries in question were on some errand when they died.

Kishkumen wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:For those who have heard the rumors about FARMS planned personal attack on John Dehlin, here is Peterson's denial:

It was Louis Midgley at the Mormon Studies conference at UVU who raised the idea of some kind of connection between John Dehlin and the deaths of certain missionaries. Of course, there is no real connection (at least, that I can see) beyond the coincidence of the event occurring in John's mission while John was also a missionary there. I believe that the missionaries in question were on some errand when they died.

One wonders why Louis Midget has not expressed a similar (or stronger) connection exists between the Mormon Presidential hopeful and the death of Romney's Mission Presidents wife when he {Romney} was driving them in a car during his missionary service in France?