The myth about me, my sudden termination as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, and the notorious much-discussed-but-as-yet-unpublished “hit piece” on John Dehlin continues to grow, with new “facts” being added to the narrative even at this relatively late juncture. Since they’re false, and since they’re the sort of “facts” that could materially influence evaluations of me and of what happened, I think, once again, that I need to publicly contradict them. They shouldn’t be permitted to stand unchallenged.

One commenter, a non-Mormon who appears to claim some kind of inside information, has announced that

“Gerald Bradford read the article in its entirety before pulling it.

“The General Authority who gave the cancellation order read portions of it beforehand.

“Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or misinformed.”

To which another commenter responded:

“The above is true. Also, the reason why DCP was dismissed by email is because he skipped out on a scheduled meeting with Bradford and wouldn’t return phone calls before his vacation.

“Of course, DCP will probably accuse me of lying when someone tells him about this post from an apostate board that he never reads.”

With regard to the first commenter:

I have absolutely no reason to believe that any General Authority had seen or read the paper in question, whether in whole or in part. It may be that one has, but I’ve heard nothing to that effect, and I frankly don’t know how a copy would have reached any of the Brethren.

I didn’t leave on vacation. I left to escort an unrelated family around Israel, a place where I had been just a month before. They hired me to do so.

As of roughly 1 June, when I last spoke with him, Gerald Bradford said – in response to my direct question – that he had not read the paper. He might have been lying, of course, but I can’t think of any reason why he would have lied, and I don’t believe that he did. He may have read it since then, but, again, I see no reason why he should have done so; to him, the matter is closed.

With regard to the second commenter:

I haven’t claimed never to read the apostate board on which he posted his remark. But I’ve definitely paid less and less attention to it over the past year or more, and I haven’t read it at all since leaving North America on 8 June. Now and again, though, somebody sends me a note regarding what’s being said there and elsewhere. That’s how I’m aware of these two comments.

I skipped no meeting with Dr. Bradford.

I’m unaware of missing any telephone calls. Certainly I didn’t deliberately skip any telephone calls.

I do not accuse this commenter of lying when he passes on such false claims. Somebody, however, is inventing fictions. They seem to be designed to justify my termination. I don’t know who is inventing them.

My source is not Dehlin, who I am cordial with but whose work I don't really care for. Rather it comes from associates of the MI.

I can confirm that, based on some first-hand knowledge as well as eyewitness accounts about this situation, that none of the accusations Dan references have any basis in fact. If people wish to make such accusation, they should do so publicly rather than anonymously, and based on first hand knowledge rather than some unknown chain of rumors and lies. The unfounded apostate slander, speculations, and sheer fantasy on this matter have been utterly shameful. It’s been going on for years, and apparently, it will never end.