Which likely to be no more impact than what MDDB has on "TBM culture", precisely none. In fact that board has probably turned more TBMs into apostates than the Tanners Salt Lake City Messenger.




You're way out of the ballpark here, Scratch. I'm sure stake presidents and bishops all over America, Europe, Asia, and Australasia are going to be grabbing this issue and warning their flock about that "wolf" John Dehlin. No doubt about it. And with the "I am a Mormon" campaign in full swing, and Mitt on the verge of the US presidency, this issue is going to be a ripper of a mass sellout.

I'm also a great admirer of Dan (along with John), but when I asked the last two missionaries I had in my home if they knew DCP, their reply was "who?" FRB/FARMS? "What's that?" Message boards like this one, and others, sometimes lead us, the participants, to think that the whole Mormon world is as riveted to the issues as we are. Not so.

I would just say that John has a great deal of credibility because he has been fair to the church. If the FARMS folks went after him, members at large might not pay attention, but when you Google his name and start getting links to articles about how evil an apostate he is, I'd say such articles have an impact.

BS. No way.



First of all, Ray, the people I would be most concerned about here are the ecclesiastical leaders of John and his close friends and allies. It does not take a mass sell out of the journal to cause real harm. All it takes is a motivated stake president who is instilled with a sense of alarm by reading the hit piece.

And who gives a crap what a 19 year old kid who has barely read the Book of Mormon before leaving on a mission, if he was lucky, knows about the existence or nonexistence of DCP? What matters is whether the CES and stake president types know the man. And I would guess the odds are much better in their case.

How many missionaries have you known to hold Church courts on the Wasatch Front?

Give me a break.

I think this is very true. Before I became aware of and started getting involved with Mormon-related message boards, I had never heard of any of these people whose names we throw around as though they are celebrities and known in every Mormon household on the globe. I've started to pay attention in my ward and stake, and asking questions of people now and then. No one I've talked to knows who Daniel Peterson is, or the FARMS Review. Few even know what "apologetics" means.

I haven't come across anyone who is aware of this message board, or who posts on a Mormon-related message board of any kind.

I think we represent the .01% of Mormons who know about or care about these things. There are probably what, about 5 million or so English-speaking Mormons in the world? Of those, probably less than half have any current association with the church. .01% of that would be 25,000, and I don't even believe there are 25,000 people total, in the world, who are aware of these things.

That's the argument I've often read here, and elsewhere, that MAD-style apologetics has turned many away from the Church. It made me quite anti-Mormon for a while.




I'm not only taking about missionaries, but stake presidents and bishops. I think you grossly underestimate their general ignorance of these matters.

McMurrin (aka "the anti-Christ of Salt Lake City") went through all of this, but was saved by Mc Kay, and it is evident from the GA who stepped in that there are still "David O. McKay's" in the Church.

What also puzzles me is that anyone would think that should this "hit piece" be censored, and that's what it amounts to, it's going to come out anyway, in other forms, in other publications, on FAIR, and FAIRWiki, and on the FAIR blog.

You delude yourself.

Might as well tackle it head-on once and for all.

Ray:

Why, if, as you say, you "respect" John Dehlin, would you want the Mopologists to attack him via a "hit piece"? What's in it for you?

Plus, you said above that you "respect" Dan Peterson, but where has he been amidst all of this? Why don't you email him and get his side of the story?

My mistake. I thought you had written MormonDiscussions, not MD*D*B. I know that a number of MDDB exiles have come here after being trashed there, so doubtless it has helped some people along the road to apostasy. Whether that number competes with the Tanners or not I can't say. The Tanners have been around many years.




Ray, you are free to feel as unconcerned as you like about all of this. I am concerned about my friend John Dehlin. To me the matter is not some abstract issue about what the real chances are. For me it is a matter of personal connection with John. I don't want him to have to deal with the Mopologetic slam in one of their "scholarly" journals.

If your average bishop "Down Under" does not know DCP, I am not sure what that proves about your average bishop in Utah. BYU is much more a part of the Utah world than it is the Australian mindscape, I would imagine.



Ha! That's hilarious, Ray. I have no doubt whatsoever that these weasels will continue to do their dirty work. If anyone is deluded here, I think it is you. You seem to grant absolutely no significance to the existence of pseudo-scholarly print journals that the LDS Church spends good money to support and house at BYU. They don't publish this stuff for ____ and giggles, Ray. They do because scholarly journals lend a certain authority to words that wikipedia does not. Doubtless they will continue on their smear parade in whatever sneaky, underhanded ways they can. But their little slams in wikipedia don't carry the same weight as a 100-page hardcopy journal article written in scholarese.

This point is worth emphasizing. Say whatever you want about the methodological flaws in Dr. Shades's "Internet/Chapel Mormon" divide, but the fact is that there is a clear hierarchy (or hierarchies) within the Church. So Ray, Carton, and others are right that the typical rank-and-file member, or the bishop of Podunk Stake in Australia might not have heard of the BYU apologists. But as you point out, Reverend, these texts are written in "scholarese," which means they're dense and they are intended more for the educated classes of LDS. Plus, they operate using a professional fundraiser supplied by the Church itself. So the principal readership for the Review are educated, upper-middle class and/or affluent Latter-day Saints. Another way of saying this is that this "smear piece" would be likely to land in the lap of a lot of LDS who weild lots of power and/or $$$.

Questioning my motives, now?

What's in it for you, Scratch?



I respect him enough to cease and desist from directly or indirectly continuing to support your six year slander of him here (compare 100 pages to six years of defamation). I think his Mormon Stories interview is sufficient to take a much broader view. I know what his "TBM" views are, and I know how literally he believes in Mormonism, but it's not my view, for many reasons, yet I can still respect his feelings/beliefs (after all, I once held them too), but I doubt I'd ever support a "drive" to "expose" John as some kind of "wolf".

I don't need to email him to "get his side of the story". I already know it, because I know where he stands on these matters, and even if we disagree on approaches to this, I'm not going to once again sour the friendship by joining any "anti-DCP crusades". Maybe I'm too much in the "middle" for your liking (or maybe even DCP's).

Tough. When it gets too convoluted, with both sides yelling at each other, I'll bow out.

Dodging the question, eh? Okay.

Nothing is in it for me, Ray. I wouldn't benefit by having Dehlin get attacked in the Review. I said earlier that I would be interested in seeing what the "hit piece" said merely for the sake of curiosity, but apart from that, nothing is "in it" for me.



This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. "I'm not going to sour the friendship"? What, just by asking for his side of the story? That doesn't sound like a "friendship" to me. It sounds more like a Fanboy/Idol relationship. I'm surprised that you would allow yourself to be so intimidated by him.

My point being: there would be no harm in asking.

Don't intimidate me. You are the Master of twisting what people say. If someone started a campaign to expose your real identity - I'd be in it 100%.

Ray, I answered your question about "what's in it for me," but you still haven't my original question. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for Prof. Peterson's side of the story. It really is astonishing to me that you think that's too much to ask, and that it would "sour the friendship." I mean, don't you want to know--from the Horse's Mouth Itself, so to speak--whether or not the Mopologists intended to portray Dehlin as a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? And if DCP gave a different account of this, who would you believe?

You don't get it, do you? And why all the hypotheticals? I don't care what you "think". If they have a "hit piece", I'd read it, and then offer my opinions, and that's all there is to it.

If the hit piece was (is) published, maybe the reverse happens … an even cursory study of John’s work might reveal to the searcher that John’s fruits have been that of a Sheppard, not a wolf, reflecting poorly on the attackers.

As for John’s “local leaders” being trigged to nuke him because of a hit piece … come on, they have known and dealt with him for many years now. He is not new on their radar.

And look at all the interviews that John seems to get with the GA’s trying to find direction to slow the decay. That must drive MI/FAIR absolutely nuts. No, they would have exed John way back if they were going to. It would take a radical act on John’s part, not DCP or Scott or anyone else at this point to get him ex’ed

Daniel Peterson will believe whatever he likes about Mormonism, and it matters not one bit to me. May he flourish in his faith as the day is long. I don't care. And may he testify with a heart full of faith, joy, and conviction to all who would listen to him. Fantastic. I am enthused by the very thought. Sounds great to me.

What I have a problem with is people like Greg Smith writing lengthy slams against members of the LDS Church who are in good standing. I find the whole enterprise to be low and despicable. To the extent that Daniel Peterson assists in such attacks, I have a problem with him. These aren't just statistics. They are people with feelings, who hold membership in the same Church as these guys do. Unless I have it wrong, no one has appointed them to a calling whereby they hunt down people who don't share their particular religious views and hold them up to public criticism, lampooning, and ridicule.

I see, Dan has no feelings. It's a-okay for Scratch to produce six years of "hit pieces" on Dan here at MormonDiscussions, and you're a-okay with that.

Got it.

Undoubtedly there will be those who come away from the Mopologetic slam with a bad taste in their mouth. After all, I would not be here were that not the case for me back in the '90s. But I think one has to assume that more people will not than do. If it were the case that many, many people reacted as we do, then the apostles probably would have put a stop to this nonsense long ago.

As Scratch said, and I think he is dead on here, in the Mormon community the perception of who is more allied with the priesthood authorities often carries the argument.



Leaders are released and called all the time. Who's to say that John would not get a new bishop or stake president in the near future who'd read the thing and decided to take action against this "bad apple."

What "hit pieces"? I've picked on him and made fun of him sometimes, and I've offered up legitimate criticisms of some of his actions. Plus, as you yourself pointed out, no one reads this board, so what I say really doesn't matter. Certainly, it's not on the same scale--it lacks the authority, gravitas, the institutionalized organization and funding, and the Official Stamp of Approval--as the FARMS Review.

You've really lost your objectivity, Ray. Even if you want to call my criticism "hit pieces," it begs the question: why are you okay with a hit piece on Dehlin, whom you say you "admire"? If you disapprove of "hit pieces" on DCP, then why not the ones about Dehlin?

Yeah, this is a good point. While I think that Rockslider is mostly right, it is certainly possible that a new leader could step in. This is what happened with Mike Quinn: he successfully avoided punishment until at last he was in the stake boundaries of one of Boyd K. Packer's pet Stake Presidents. (Hanks was the guy's name, IIRC.) And in this case--based on what I've been told--it seems like Elder Packer is on Greg Smith's and the apologists' side. So John has every right to be concerned. Boyd K. Packer could install a new, unsympathetic SP and have Dehlin ex'ed.

Did I say I was okay with it? I said I'd read it and then offer my opinions. In fact I said the opposite, that I'd probably not be okay with it, particularly if there is any attempt to paint John as a "wolf" with ulterior motives and trying to lead people away from the Church.

Ray, who has the pull with the Church to put someone's membership in potential peril?

Who is the editor of a print journal that publishes under the auspices of the LDS Church's flagship university?

Let's stick to the topic. Greg Smith wrote a 100-page criticsm of John Dehlin. This would be wrong whether or not Scratch even existed.

Bottom line: I don't buy that we are talking about equivalent issues here. I know you have been dying to transform it into one since first you stepped into the fray here. I simply don't see Scratch's activities rising to the level of imperiling a person's membership in the faith of their upbringing.

And, alas, I am not interested in hashing out another, "yeah, but Scratch..." argument again. It seems to me that it is little more than a maneuver to shut down any criticism of Daniel. Oh, you guys are fortunate to have it. Yes, the surface appearance of hypocrisy is richly abundant. But the difficulty is that what Scratch has done to Daniel is nothing compared to the power of the LDS Church, its authority, and its resources in the hands of its intellectual Danites.