mormonstories.org

[jay santos]

Furthermore, let's consider the alternative scenario for a moment. Suppose the Maxwell Institute caught wind that JD and MoSto were going to do a podcast that is a critical review of the Maxwell Institute and called in the big guns to get it silenced without even seeing the content of the podcast. Can you imagine the shit storm that would ensue? Yowza.

That's a wet dream for the post Mo crowd.

[falafel]

What does that have do with anything? As I mentioned above, JD never claimed to have read the article. In the e-mail he sent and in the discussion on the thread, not once (unless I missed something) did he claim to know what was in the article, other than it would be a critical review of Mormon Stories. In the follow-up e-mail he sent, he attacked Daniel Peterson's character (ponder the irony of that for a moment) and attacked apologetics in general as being damaging to the faith of members (more irony), and included some random quotes from anonymous participants in a survey. I think it is safe to assume that if he had some knowledge of slanderous/incorrect material in the article, he would have used that in his argument that it be suppressed.

Given that context, the fact that I have not read the article either seems completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Do you have any evidence of that? If so, please share. All we know is that JD raised some hell and stopped the publication (for now).

In reading that thread, I think its pretty clear that Dehlin had a decent idea of the content of the article. He noted that he was tipped off by a friend who either worked at Maxwell or had another friend that worked there (I think its the latter). In fact, the Maxwell insider was apparently working on squelching the article himself before Dehlin was even aware of it. It seems pretty plausible that if the Maxwell guy was willing to leak the existence of the article to a friend of Dehlin, he would also give some inside info regarding the content.

Given that, I can see why Dehlin wouldn't want to discuss his 3rd hand understanding of the substance of the article. Either its patently untrue (and therefore Dehlin doesn't want lies spread about him) or its accurate and damaging (in which case Dehlin doesn't want accurate and damning information spread about him). Either way, his goal is to suppress it.

[Moliere]

Dehlin has a history of censorship so this whole thing is no surprise. He's also very narcissistic, which only adds fuel to the fire. I'm a MS fan...in a way, but not really a JD fan. He feels slimey and cold in a way that just doesn't make me feel right. I'm not exactly sure why I feel that way, or I do know why and just can't articulate it, but regardless I'll still listen to his podcasts.

While I'm also not a fan at all of MoEx, I've got to say that John Larsen feels much more genuine and stable. I can only imagine his response to something like this....which would be to ignore it and continue doing what he's doing. Of course, Larsen also probably doesn't have the personal email address of a Q12 member.

[ERCougar]

What does that have do with anything? As I mentioned above, JD never claimed to have read the article. In the e-mail he sent and in the discussion on the thread, not once (unless I missed something) did he claim to know what was in the article, other than it would be a critical review of Mormon Stories. In the follow-up e-mail he sent, he attacked Daniel Peterson's character (ponder the irony of that for a moment) and attacked apologetics in general as being damaging to the faith of members (more irony), and included some random quotes from anonymous participants in a survey. I think it is safe to assume that if he had some knowledge of slanderous/incorrect material in the article, he would have used that in his argument that it be suppressed.

Given that context, the fact that I have not read the article either seems completely irrelevant to the discussion.



Do you have any evidence of that? If so, please share. All we know is that JD raised some hell and stopped the publication (for now).

Well, part of the problem is that we don't know what he knows or doesn't know, partly because he didn't publish his original email, which is unfair to Dan Peterson and for which I already criticized him. But the other details shared certainly make me think he knows something of the contents.

For some reason, Maxwell is not publishing, and likely at the urging of the church. So I'll go ahead and guess that there was something that was distasteful. If it was a fair and issues-based critique of mormonstories, then why not publish it?

But sure, I'm guessing. And so are you. No one has any details, so I've shied away from strong judgments either way. 'Indefensible' seems way too strong when no one has any idea what was about to be published or what conversation took place between John and Dan or what exactly this GA did, or really anything. What facts are you missing? Pretty much all of them.

I agree with you and UD that these sorts of attacks are usually counterproductive, and that the best thing to do is let them publish whatever they want. I have to think that John is smart enough to know that, which makes me think that there was something a little further below the belt, and I'm guessing towards past guests that he's had. Maybe he felt that in order to protect the stream of future guests, he needed to ensure that they wouldn't be dragged through the mud? Just guessing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, part of the problem is that we don't know what he knows or doesn't know, partly because he didn't publish his original email, which is unfair to Dan Peterson and for which I already criticized him. But the other details shared certainly make me think he knows something of the contents.

For some reason, Maxwell is not publishing, and likely at the urging of the church. So I'll go ahead and guess that there was something that was distasteful. If it was a fair and issues-based critique of mormonstories, then why not publish it?

But sure, I'm guessing. And so are you. No one has any details, so I've shied away from strong judgments either way. 'Indefensible' seems way too strong when no one has any idea what was about to be published or what conversation took place between John and Dan or what exactly this GA did, or really anything. What facts are you missing? Pretty much all of them.

I agree with you and UD that these sorts of attacks are usually counterproductive, and that the best thing to do is let them publish whatever they want. I have to think that John is smart enough to know that, which makes me think that there was something a little further below the belt, and I'm guessing towards past guests that he's had. Maybe he felt that in order to protect the stream of future guests, he needed to ensure that they wouldn't be dragged through the mud? Just guessing.

I have no idea how this "information that would be damaging to JD or his family" idea got started. Where is the evidence? If that was the case, why not refer to said slander when describing why he did this? What possible reason would there be not to state that as part of the objection?

In fact, why don't we just take JD at his word? Straight up.

A final note: I don't mind being criticized. Not at all. Also, I need to clarify something: I did not respond this way out of a desire to protect or save myself, or out of a spirit of censorship. My guess is that this article, in the end, would have probably given us more credibility and publicity regarding the good things we are trying to do at Mormon Stories

So why did I fight the article? I did it because I believe in my heart that the old school, disingenuous, ad hominem-style apologetics a la Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley are very, very damaging: to the church, to its members, to its former members, and mostly to its targets. My strategic hope was that fighting this article within the ranks of church leadership could be used to help bring light to these destructive tactics, and hopefully drive a death nail or two into them. I don't know if I've ultimately succeeded on that front (time will tell, I guess), but based on feedback from several sources, I feel like it may have done some good in this regard. If not, well....at least I tried.

So JD is trying to protect the Saints by suppressing publications? Lovely.

And finally, your assertion that the non-publication of the article (yet) is proof that there was something fundamentally wrong or slanderous in the article does not hold water. I have seen BYU back off on publishing legit information several times out of a desire to avoid controversy. And I am guessing with an election year and Mormon moment in play, they are particularly sensitive.

[DU Ute]

It's funny that both these factions think the other is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the Church and the greatest threat out there to good members everywhere. Can't they both be right?

[CardiacCoug]

The fact is that John Dehlin doesn't take criticism well and is hypersensitive -- he deletes comments and bans people for saying anything negative toward him on his site or the Facebook page.

I don't have a problem with what he did to block this publication really -- but it's not at all true that he "doesn't mind being criticized."

[lambdacoug]

So JD is trying to protect the Saints by suppressing publications? Lovely.

Hrmmm, this sounds familiar...

[DU Ute]

Hrmmm, this sounds familiar...

:confused2:

[ERCougar]

I have no idea how this "information that would be damaging to JD or his family" idea got started. Where is the evidence? If that was the case, why not refer to said slander when describing why he did this? What possible reason would there be not to state that as part of the objection?

In fact, why don't we just take JD at his word? Straight up.

So JD is trying to protect the Saints by suppressing publications? Lovely.

And finally, your assertion that the non-publication of the article (yet) is proof that there was something fundamentally wrong or slanderous in the article does not hold water. I have seen BYU back off on publishing legit information several times out of a desire to avoid controversy. And I am guessing with an election year and Mormon moment in play, they are particularly sensitive.

Dude, I said I'm guessing! Several times! I never used the word "proof" or anything even like it. You're the one who's sure enough about things to say his actions are "indefensible". He may have gone too far, I don't know--I already said I don't agree with publishing Peterson's email and not his own, and I agree that his "protecting the church" angle sounds weak, although I'm even guessing here. I'm just saying there are some possible justifiable reasons why he might try to prevent the publication of an article, whose contents none of us know a thing about, by an entity known for ad hominem tactics and even slanderous attacks. I know--I'm way out on a limb here.

[ERCougar]

The fact is that John Dehlin doesn't take criticism well and is hypersensitive -- he deletes comments and bans people for saying anything negative toward him on his site or the Facebook page.

I don't have a problem with what he did to block this publication really -- but it's not at all true that he "doesn't mind being criticized."

Heh...
I spend very little time on his facebook page, but every complaint I've heard about deletions of comments center on comments criticizing the Church, not him. Do you have any examples?

I'm coming across like a Dehlin fanboy here when I'm not. I think he gets great guests, but I think he's a somewhat poor interviewer and his personality grates a little. I like Dan Witherspoon much better. I actually even like Dan Peterson much more than I thought I would after his interview. I just think we ought to refrain from hanging a guy without knowing ANY of the facts. It's really comical how little we know about anything that went on--we think that JD heard that the Maxwell Institute was going to publish something, so he talked to some guy who did something and may have asked them not to and they didn't. Wow.

[Northwestcoug]

Dehlin has a history of censorship so this whole thing is no surprise. He's also very narcissistic, which only adds fuel to the fire. I'm a MS fan...in a way, but not really a JD fan. He feels slimey and cold in a way that just doesn't make me feel right. I'm not exactly sure why I feel that way, or I do know why and just can't articulate it, but regardless I'll still listen to his podcasts.

While I'm also not a fan at all of MoEx, I've got to say that John Larsen feels much more genuine and stable. I can only imagine his response to something like this....which would be to ignore it and continue doing what he's doing. Of course, Larsen also probably doesn't have the personal email address of a Q12 member.

My thoughts about JD exactly. I used to spend a lot more time on mormonstories than I do now. It just seems like this last year that he has no focus, and his philosophy is all over the place. Add to that the feel that it's becoming a 'business' to him just makes it seem unsavory. If there's an interesting podcast, I'll listen to it. But it's been awhile. He could adopt quite a few pointers from John Larsen. Even if you disagree with his group, in general his podcasts are easier to listen to, and more entertaining, frankly.

That said, JD's recent post brought up some very interesting tidbits. Does he really have access to general authorities? Does he have that much power to have a GA quelch an article by a BYU-sponsored institution? If so, wow.

[DrumNFeather]

For some reason, Maxwell is not publishing, and likely at the urging of the church. So I'll go ahead and guess that there was something that was distasteful. If it was a fair and issues-based critique of mormonstories, then why not publish it?

Perhaps they decided to just cut their losses rather than add fuel to the fire with a group that is very often galvanized and reinvigorated by things like this.

Here's a great analogy...it reminds me of when Jim Boylen made a point of going after Gordon Monson during a post BYU/Utah press conference in which the Cougs thumped the Utes. He called him out and gave him his "nice of you to show up" remark. He got the first shot in, but Monson got all of the subsequent shots in because, as he put it, you don't go after the guy who's got the pen in his hand and the microphone in front of his face, because he'll use both against you. Monson continues to take cheap shots at Jim Boylen, who has since been fired...who won that squabble?

So at the end of the day I think they just decided that it made more sense to not publish the article rather than to allow Dehlin to mobilize his audience via blogs, podcasts etc, by playing the martyr card.

[ERCougar]

Perhaps they decided to just cut their losses rather than add fuel to the fire with a group that is very often galvanized and reinvigorated by things like this.
.
.
.
So at the end of the day I think they just decided that it made more sense to not publish the article rather than to allow Dehlin to mobilize his audience via blogs, podcasts etc, by playing the martyr card.

I think I'm about done here, since again, I know nothing more than anyone else about this, which is about...oh...nothing, but I'll keep biting...

"galvanized and reinvigorated by things like this"? Things like what?

[cowboy]

...Furthermore, let's consider the alternative scenario for a moment. Suppose the Maxwell Institute caught wind that JD and MoSto were going to do a podcast that is a critical review of the Maxwell Institute and called in the big guns to get it silenced without even seeing the content of the podcast. Can you imagine the shit storm that would ensue? Yowza.

The pig has begun walking on two legs.