I contacted DP and the GA at exactly the same time. I think that ad hominem attacks are shameful.

No Stem, not everyone.

Wow, the Midgley thing is really awful. Sickening, really. But then again, there are multiple accounts of him doing aggressive things like this: verbally assaulting Sandra Tanner at her place of work; flinging profanities at the vigil for Lynne Whitesides, and so on. My question is this: did they put this business about the deceased missionary into the article? I.e., did both Greg Smith and DCP sign off on the notion of including this? Or was this just Louis "Woody" Midgley off on a rant?

Good to hear. it seems, in part, this is a classic case of misunderstanding each other and lack of communication. It seems DCP is under the impression the emails you initially sent weren't primarily to him. They were sent primarily to another. When I read his comments I had in mind the idea that when I send an email out for something I often will cc someone who may or may not be interested in the conversation or information in the email, often thinking, by cc'ing them they are welcome to the info but it is directed at another. I wonder if that's what he had in mind in all of this.

Don't know...but it's all part of what made me feel sick and concerned enough to cause a ruckus. No one had the courtesy to send me the article, so I had to respond on the information I had available. If stuff like that was going to be printed....I was not going to take that lying down.

True 'nuff. Not everyone.

Maybe - I sent the original email to the GA and DP (along with others) because DP stopped answering my emails to him a long, long time ago, and so I felt like it was the only way to get his attention. If he would have engaged me directly in the past, I would never have felt the need to go over his head...but he ignored me enough that I didn't see any other way to get his attention.

I can definitely understand and agree with John's desire to protect himself from a negative article aimed at him personally. If, as in the case of Brant Gardner, there were a book to review, one might be more blase about it all naturally, but the very nature of the enterprise here would result in ad hominem. I can't say that I would have taken it lying down either. You mobilize the resources you have. I don't see anything wrong with contacting people you know who might be disposed to listen to your side of the story.

Yeah, that's an important point, I think, John. I hope that people have noticed that the apologists are complaining about one thing: that they were "scolded" by the GAs, and were forced to pull the article. And again, this just underscores the extreme differences between the "Mormon Stories" approach versus the Mopologists'. You'll notice that none of the Mopologists--not a single one: not DCP, not Hamblin, not Smith, nor any of the other key parties involved--is defending the actual article. They're not saying, "This was a really great article, and we think it's important that people read it." They're not saying, "We believe this article could have been a great comfort and help to a lot of people." Heck, they're not even saying, "We think this article would have successfully warned wavering members away from John Dehlin." They're not defending the article at all! Instead, it's all about the fact that they got slapped on the wrist. That is *extraordinarily* telling. John has been consistently able to argue in favor of the good, positive, helpful work he's doing. The apologists can't or won't do that. I appreciate the fact that Kishkumen is being even-handed, analytical, and decent in this thread, but in this case, given what's been said, I can't see how the Mopologists were at all well-meaning in this instance. They cannot (or will not) even articulate what their "good intentions" supposedly were. Based on what John D. has said, it sounds like this was a smear campaign plain and simple, and that all three of these individuals--DCP, Midgley, and Smith--had signed off on it. (Yes: I saw that Dan said that he "doesn't remember" whether he'd read it or not, but so what? All of the articles are planned/commissioned in advance.)

Finally: DCP is trying to compare this situation with the 2004 John-Charles Duffy piece on Mopologetics, which is a really poor comparison. By 2004, the Review had been publishing hit pieces for over a decade, and DCP was well into his online career of harassing and bullying people. To claim that there is any similarity between what Duffy wrote and what the MI Mopologists were up to is beyond silly.

Thanks. That's interesting. It seems like some simple misunderstandings were involved.

Apparently Bill Hamblin has "outed" everyone except for the Seventy that John sent the email to here

The names he's including shouldn't come as any surprise:

Richard Bushman, Philip Barlow, Terryl Givens and Area Authority Seventy, Elder Hans H. Mattsson.

Elder Mattsson participated in the Mormon Stories Conderence in Sweden so it shouldn't come as any surprise that he would be friends with John Dehlin. Apparently Daniel Peterson had no idea who he was:



Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

A piece of the story that is missing for me (and it probably will not come to light) is whatever the GA/s actually did. Were just these two emails from Dehlin enough to cause the editorial team at the MI to act? I was told that an apostle finally had to get involved, which would lead me to believe that this conflict went on for some time beyond what is indicated in these few emails.

I am inclined to listen to the emotions that Daniel Peterson expresses here with a measure of sympathy:



I imagine that Daniel was really thrown for a loop by this and felt very much attacked, and at a terrible time. I feel like the guy should be cut some major slack for this. I have stated my position on the structural (read: not personal) nature of the problem that is causing so much pain, and I think it would be the more compassionate thing to take Daniel's feelings into account here.

Let's not join mobs that are out to exterminate each other. Let's work to find solutions.

+1.

When all of this comes down final, I hope someone as talented as MsJack will compile it all together in one final piece. It will make for a great read later on.

Just wanted to say thanks for all you do John and I am glad you responded in a respectful but assertive way so that hopefully these kinds of situations will not happen in the future (one can hope).

The trouble is that people have tried in various ways for over 30 years to "find solutions" with the Mopologists. They just won't listen. JD himself said that he tried multiple times to get DCP to listen, and the only thing that finally worked was alerting colleagues and General Authorities. I guess that's the only "solution" that will work. "Mormon Stories" has been about getting people to have an open dialogue on all these structure issues that you mentioned, and for his troubles Dehlin was targeted for a smear campaign. You would think the bridge-building and open dialogue would be the best solution. Clearly, the apologists have a difference of opinion. I'm sorry, Reverend, but I think these guys are too far gone to be "saved." No amount of compassion, reasonableness, or anything else will ever, ever persuade them to be charitable or decent. They will keep attacking and smearing until they are six feet under....Or until a General Authority puts a stop to it.

I'm still just beside myself as to why the apologists would have wanted to target Dehlin in the first place. Why? They won't even defend their own "hit piece." What "good" did they think it would accomplish? I can just imagine them laughing, thinking how funny it would be to skewer Dehlin and make him look like this "wolf in sheep's clothing." "I've got a provocative sense of humor," DCP often says. I'm sure that, as they were planning this, they found it hilarious.

In any case, the last piece of the puzzle here is whatever the GA/s said to the apologists, but Dehlin won't post it out of respect, and the Mopologists won't post it because it doubtless makes them look bad.

John, it's not so easy to ignore feeding the gaping-mouthed trolls, is it? I am glad to see more information about this coming out today. I was confident you were telling the truth and that stemelbow, statics, and the other apologists posting yesterday on the other thread were engaging in character assassination in an attempt to get the focus off the reprehensible actions of Smith, Midgley, Peterson, and company. It is gratifying to see you set the record straight. One can only hope the apologists who yesterday said repeatedly that you were lying about what happened, even calling into question the existence of the hit piece, will today apologize to you and acknowledge their errors. You have been gracious in apologizing for the tone of your first post on the subject, Kishkumen has likewise been gracious in apologizing for specific things he said that turned out to be wrong. I would hope that apologies would be forthcoming from stem and statics and Peterson and Midgley. But I won't hold my breath. John, I'm going to honor your wish to not address the apologists directly in this thread.

I can verify that what you say about being able to take criticism is true. You have taken pointed criticism from me in the past and you have a very thick skin, often taking criticism from both sides of the faithful/apostate divide. You absolutely did not deserve this kind of treatment from your fellow members of the church. The people responsible for this hit piece should all be ashamed of themselves. Even when we have disagreed in the past, you have always been courteous, kind, and understanding.

I'm sorry. I don't know what you have in mind about what wrong doing I did, but I'm quick to apologize generally (ask my wife).

"...on the other thread were engaging in character assassination in an attempt to et the focus off the reprehensible actions of Smith, Midgley, Peterson, and company."

What character assassination are you attempting to foist upon me?

Doctor Scratch:

I am trying to be practical here and seek the best possible result for all parties. I see no sense in me wasting my energies striking people I don't hate, so I am not going to do that. I am speaking for myself here and not implying anything about the actions of others. From my years at BYU two decades ago, my primary "issue" has not been the existence of apologetics, but what I thought was its counterproductive use against fellow LDS or outsiders who were really not intentionally antagonistic (Brooke in his book Refiner's Fire).

I have no illusions about my power to "reform" anyone or "save" anything. I can no more change apologetics or persuade the apologists than I can make myself a billionaire overnight. So, I don't pretend to any such goal. Rather, I am observing that it would be better, in my opinion, for the LDS Church and for those members who encounter questions and problems, to have a pastoral organization they could seek out for assistance that would not be the hammer treating every problem like a nail. All those who see the wisdom in that can echo my appeal, make it their own, and advocate it in their own way.

I think one of the best merits of my position is that it does not demonize the apologists. It says, "hey, you guys do this stuff, you have good intentions, you do good work, and you have your place." I say this because I think that Mormons deserve to defend themselves and their beliefs just as much as Jews, Catholics, or any other religious group does. Why should I say, "I will not be satisfied until every one of these "old school apologists" is drummed out of the Church in shame"? I don't feel that way. It is not what I want. So, I'm not going there.

I went to BYU. Some of these guys, or men very much like them (Hugh Nibley), were my teachers. Some of the stuff they have done is really cool, and I applaud them for it. If someone whose job it is to do such things (apostle, president) could see the wisdom, or be inspired by the Spirit, to direct them more exclusively to the task that their approach is best suited for (fighting external critics of Mormonism), and see to the pastoral care of hurting members through other means, I would be overjoyed. I could sit back and be very, very happy about what happened. I would be at peace about this whole thing.

As a fellow "Star Wars" fan, I knew there was a reason I liked you! LOL

Thanks for bringing some levity to this thread.

First of all, John, I want you to know that I applaud the work that you have done, and continue to do. During a very serious trial of my faith, you were instrumental in helping me find peace in my NOMness.

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.

That really appears to be the end of this story. I really don't understand why it is being blown up into some huge federal case.

Since you, John, have not read the article, you are only guessing as to what was actually written.

And, the bottom line is, this article, which it appears, has never been published, and no one has read, will not be published.

What more do you hope to accomplish?