Another thing I meant to mention: My Malevolent Stalker, who apparently broke this story, has usually been spectacularly wrong in his "intel." Some of it has been outright laughable. I think he has varying sources. One of them, I happen to know (though I don't know who s/he is), has been planting false but delicious stories with the Stalker, of the kind that the Stalker is known to love. He wolfs them down ravenously. This story, though, is more or less accurate -- though the spin that's being put upon it ranges from in the ballpark to completely absurd.

Whether or not Dehlin will be excommunicated anytime soon is less important to me than the fact that his true identity and purposes have been greatly illuminated over the course of the past several weeks.  

Hopefully, the powers that be will connect Dehlin's purposes with those of the people who have worked to effect the coup d'état at the Maxwell Institute, and move to thwart them before it is too late.

Another thing I meant to mention: My Malevolent Stalker, who apparently broke this story, has usually been spectacularly wrong in his "intel." Some of it has been outright laughable. I think he has varying sources. One of them, I happen to know (though I don't know who s/he is), has been planting false but delicious stories with the Stalker, of the kind that the Stalker is known to love. He wolfs them down ravenously. This story, though, is more or less accurate -- though the spin that's being put upon it ranges from in the ballpark to completely absurd.

Whether or not Dehlin will be excommunicated anytime soon is less important to me than the fact that his true identity and purposes have been greatly illuminated over the course of the past several weeks.  

Hopefully, the powers that be will connect Dehlin's purposes with those of the people who have worked to effect the coup d'état at the Maxwell Institute, and move to thwart them before it is too late.

LOL!!!

OK. Yes, we know that the evil John Dehlin, upon finding that a witch hunt was being conducted against him by a small cadre of ideologues at the Maxwell Institute, appealed to one of the Lord's anointed to help him out--surely the tactic of an apostate turncoat. And the reaction of the "real Mormons" like Schryver was to accuse everyone who disagreed with him and his anti-Dehlin buddies "apostates" (apostle included?). And this nonsense continues in the words of Scott Loyd on MDDB.

What an embarrassing display of obstinacy, obtuseness, and delusional thinking.

Is Will anticipating the excommunication of an apostle over this?

Stunning.

My thoughts:

I think the way some of this has been handled was unfortunate. I do sincerely wish Dan Peterson the best in his life, and in his pursuits.

However, I see Bradford's desires and intents for the MI, as I've seen them expressed, to be a good ones. The inherent problem with much of the MI/FARMS apologetics is that generally a particular view, or interpretation, or ideology is what is being defended, not simply THE CHURCH, or even its core doctrines and principles. This does lead to alienation of those who do have a desire to see the Church defended, but not differing interprative wings thereof.

I think the absolute best thing being done and the example to set is the work being done by the Church Historian's Press - amazing, groundbreaking documentary editing and textual/contextual notes without being defensive, or trying to justify anything. This is how things are, let the cards be laid out.

The same problem with FARM/MI apologetics was very much the same as was presented in CES course materials - one very specific way of understanding Mormonism and its scriptures was being promulgated and defended, while other very valid and allowable-by-the-current-revelations-and-leadership views we, by omission, marginalized.

I've been a subscriber to MI publications, and have let my subscription to most of them lapse, mainly because of frustration with declarations as fact elements that are not necessary aspects of Mormonism guiding and permeating several of the papers, and their conclusions. (The second issue of Studies of the Bible and Antiquity greatly turned me off of this publication for these very reasons, which I was otherwise quite excited to see begin.)

I think by the way the Church has been handling its newest curriculum (such as the latest Gospel Principles revision), we are seeing an attempt to weed out former speculative assumptions and expositions that had become dogmatic. There's a lot of weeds.

What's fascinating is that the latest Gospel Principles did not narrow the breadth of official interpretive possibilities, but rather quite fascinatingly and subtly widened it.

I feel a continued emphases for the MI on pumping out documents, history, and critiquing history on a scholastic (not dogmatic) level will do far more for the Church in the long run. This way, they will presenting what we know, not just theories and defenses that will need to be disavowed or stepped away from when further information comes to light.

The openness of the Church will be far more faith promoting and confidence-building than constant attempts at damage control of things that, it turns out, don't often really need to, or should be, defended.

The Joseph Smith Papers and the current Church History Department is doing it right. It would be great to see the MI publications continue in the future to follow in this example.

Also, I don't believe for a second that they're not whining to the General Authorities. I'd be willing to bet that that was their first move: to phone up the members of whatever "faction" is most sympathetic to what they've been doing for the past 30 years.

Goody goody gumdrops! I love a good scandal in the Mormon church just in time for the presidential election!