DiscussMormonism.com

I have just received a piece of intel from a source with impeccable credibility. This person is an active Latter-day Saint, whom I trust implicitly. It is important that you understand that this person is not an employee of the Maxwell Institute and has never been affiliated with the Institute. How the person read a copy of the hit piece is confidential. This person confirmed to me that Greg Smith's John Dehlin piece is indeed a hit piece, and is not a "review of Mormon Stories," as Wiki Wonka and others have claimed.

I know that the Good Doctor usually asks that we take such intel with a grain of salt. In this case, I have absolutely no reason to doubt this source. The person from whom I received this intel is a good, active Latter-day Saint with no history of being a critic of the LDS Church. I also trust this person as one whose judgment, intelligence, and education are impressive indeed. The person is one whose character comes well recommended by other friends I have known and trusted for decades.

Oh, I should state as well that those friends also do not work for Maxwell. I don't want Bill to start spinning some new bogus conspiracy theory by overreading between the lines.

I’m amazed that people still doubt it is a hit piece, like there is some real chance that the commercial apologists could do anything else.

I’m amazed that people still doubt it is a hit piece, like there is some real chance that the commercial apologists could do anything else.

Seems more likely that it would be much less of a hit piece than any anti Mormon work. Still, let's see it first before we jump to conclusions.

Now that Dehlin's wanderings have taken him back into the Church for the time being, perhaps he doesn't need one anymore. If he wanders back out, perhaps he does. The Savior himself has authored many hit pieces. All one has to do is read the Bible to know this.

Kishkumen wrote:The person from whom I received this intel is a good, active Latter-day Saint with no history of being a critic of the LDS Church. I also trust this person as one whose judgment, intelligence, and education are impressive indeed. The person is one whose character comes well recommended by other friends I have known and trusted for decades.

Ah, so you could very well be talking about Doctor Scratch. Got it.

Gadianton wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:The person from whom I received this intel is a good, active Latter-day Saint with no history of being a critic of the LDS Church. I also trust this person as one whose judgment, intelligence, and education are impressive indeed. The person is one whose character comes well recommended by other friends I have known and trusted for decades.

Ah, so you could very well be talking about Doctor Scratch. Got it.

Gadianton wrote:Ah, so you could very well be talking about Doctor Scratch. Got it.

LOL! Very clever, Dean Robbers.

No, it was not our colleague, Doctor Scratch. It was someone who is unaffiliated with this discussion board.

bcspace wrote:The Savior himself has authored many hit pieces. All one has to do is read the Bible to know this.

Can't argue with that. I love it when I can find common ground with a Mormon apologist.

MrStakhanovite wrote:I’m amazed that people still doubt it is a hit piece, like there is some real chance that the commercial apologists could do anything else.

Well, I have seen them do other things, but in this case I am seeing less wiggle room all the time. Indeed, I was also told by another person who was lurking on MDDB last night that Schryver quoted portions of the hit piece, thought better of it, and edited them out. The quotes were, evidently, very negative statements about John Dehlin.

Since I did not witness this myself, and I don't personally know the person who told me this, I can't confirm it, but it certainly matches this new intel, which I place a great deal of confidence in.

The Savior himself has authored many hit pieces. All one has to do is read the Bible to know this.

Can't argue with that. I love it when I can find common ground with a Mormon apologist.

Believe the words of Jesus in the scriptures and you'll always find common ground.

I came across a post over there that said JD had requested Smith's paper to be published. What's up with that?

Then the apologists were saying that if the paper is published, the critics won't believe it is the original paper, because it's so tame.

Then Will said that critics will believe the paper is the original because they blow everything out of proportion.