How did I miss this? Daniel Peterson ousted as editor due to hit piece on Dehlin
 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/utes/54...udies.html.csp

I'm sympathetic to "large-tent Mormonism", no doubt about it. But I'm not personally enthralled with John Dehlin. I would not go to battle with John Dehlin by my side.

I don't follow FARMS very closely (nor Dehlin, for that matter), but if this in fact takes FARMS in a more academic direction, I don't see how that is a bad thing. I've long thought that the entire BYU religion department ought to be more academic. There fan always be a place for hard-core apologetics. It just doesn't have to be the Maxwell Institute at BYU.

I've been following this closely. It's not due to the hit piece on Dehlin. It's due to differences between Bradford and Peterson's vision for MI, that have been broiling for years.

We already have academic venues: BYU studies, Dialogue, etc. Why do we need another one?

I hope we can have an apologetics organization independent of the Church come out of this.

And Dehlin is censoring just about everything right now. He posted a link to a piece critical of him, and when too many commentators supported the piece, he took it down.

He just can't take criticism; he is a pussy.

Is the piece on Dehlin ever going to be published somewhere? I have a lot of concern about Dehlin. I could be wrong, but I don't think he is as he portrays himself.

Annoying to read LDS pieces and then see quotes from Dehlin. As if he is supposed to be on the rolodex when it comes to all Mormon issues.

How long will it be before we get a Richard Dutcher-esque announcement from Dehlin?

I'll try to locate a copy.

The 'hit piece" is going to be released soon. Dehlin is claiming (on Daniel Peterson's Facebook) that they are sanitizing it.

But Dehlin's original claim was that he wanted it suppressed to protect the Church and BYU. So then why is he insisting they publish the original "hit piece" then?

Daniel Peterson claims it was not sanitized.

Dehlin continues to tend to his flock.

http://www.usustatesman.com/psycholo...aith-1.2806874

Here it is.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gre...ormon-stories/

Did some speed reading and went through both articles.

To say that I barely follow Dehlin would be an overstatement. I may have listened to one or two podcasts a few years ago. I must have, because I have in my mind what his voice sounds like.

If you have followed what I have said on CG, then you have noted that my opinion (which is largely ignorant) of Dehlin has grown darker and darker with time.

"I am an innocent true seeker" has become "I am the self-appointed leader of a new movement in Mormonism." I don't trust people like that, speaking generally.

Some of you may not remember that Dehlin is actually a registered member of CG. He has posted twice. http://cougarguard.com/forum/member.php?u=463

I had thought that he had posted here requesting that someone take over Mormon Stories. But that appears not to be the case. Someone else here probably just advertised that he wanted someone to take over.

What if someone had? I remember briefly turning the idea over in my head, and rejecting the idea. Didn't have the interest (much less time and energy).

Unfortunately, I will no doubt be seeing Dehlin's name in the news for years to come, cited as an authority and expert <hurl>.

......

Anyway, I don't have much to say about the articles. Since I don't follow Dehlin I can't really say if they are fair or unfair. Don't really care much either. I've already rejected Dehlin as someone worth paying any attention.

What do you think about his clinical psychology work?

I actually think some of his podcasts are excellent. I'm sure unsure that his 'purpose' actually merits an entire movement.

I also think some of the apologists are too harsh on him.

I don't know anything about his work. Helping people transition out of religion? Sounds petty in a world with a lot bigger mental health problems than that.

just a guess--he will try to turn a mole hill into a palace with him holding court.

His position is weird, in that he's not an academic, not a reader, just a podcaster, who views the Tanners as legitimate historians. Does one need anything more than that to consider him anti-Lite? Except he has a forum and people actually quote him.

Too bad, anti's don't have an academic heavy-weight. Of course, that would require effort and regimen, instead of relying upon hyperbole and actual evidence.

There are legitimate questions a thinking person can raise, but when one is sloppy as Dehlin has been, you lose credibility.

Who uses podcasts? Marketers and people without time to do legitimate scholarship.

I agree with Archaea, that's also one of the main takeaway points of the article--that Dehlin is quite sloppy and intellectually lazy.

He gets a lot of material out there, but he's not exactly taken the time to be informed, much less be an expert.

Kind of like those radio talk shows where the guests are all plugging a book. The better hosts have actually read the book. Dehlin admits he likes the Larry King approach--virtually no homework at all.

It would be kind of like I jumped in and did this kind of thing. I would know just enough to get me into trouble. I could talk a good game, but I would be woefully ignorant on many subjects.

There's nothing terribly wrong with being that kind of podcast host. But when you are actually trying to start your own religious movement, you probably need to do a little bit of homework.

He's an active member now. Not going to start his own religion.

Or he is wont to say.

For the record, I don't care if he is active or inactive, but his projects seem to be bent on undoing the Church. That doesn't sound to me to be an active believer.

If I were his file leader, I would simply ignore him. His intellectual laziness will be his undoing.

What I want to know if why he is so ignorant of pro-Church arguments and facts. Doesn't even bother.

He also admires the New Atheists. Even SU thinks the New Atheist arguments are sophomoric. They make crappy pop arguments.

He claimed that people who know the most about Mormon history don't find the narrative credible. Matt Bowman (PhD American Religious History Georgetown, in my ward) told me this isn't true.

Richard Bushman's Faith Crisis Model .

1. Glass Testimony, everything is clear and pristine.
2. Goes on internet, glass breaks, either leaves church or...
3. Stays long enough, understands the historical context behind events, stays.

If he weren't so quoted in pop news circles, he would be worthless. And there are legitimate questions, even questions that can challenge one's faith, but Dehlin doesn't get it, because he lacks the work ethic and intellectual curiosity to evaluate the merits of claims to ascertain which groups are lost as well, i.e., the Tanners.

my real world (ie not internet) experience with people who apostatize is that they are not deep thinkers. They are gloss. one exception to that among the people I know, and not surprisingly he is the least rabid of them.

Teryl Givens is trying to keep people in the church.

John Dehlin says he is "neutral" (apparently, if the article is accurate) while admitting that many more people leave the church because what he says than stay in. And he throws up his hands and says, well if that is the case, it's because of this dang leadership in the church.

Very different from what I do. Which is work with young people in the church, help them grow, teach them about testimony, and try to get them to fulfill their full potential (which I believe the church can magnify exponentially).

Yup, what Dehlin and I do are very different. And I'm just one small cog in one small place, doing what many thousands of others are doing. I would be surprised if even 1% of American Mormons have even heard of Dehlin or Mormon stories.

Dehlin encourages people who leave the church to idolize Bob McCue as a way to find closure.

citation?

He talks to them as if they are a bunch of whiny children with no ability to cope with a life choice change. Very pedantic if you ask me.

It occurs to me that Dehlin's views may be warped by the position he occupies. In addition to the podcasts he has done, he has probably had additional private conversations and email interactions with untold numbers of persons who express doubts, uncertainly, unhappiness with the church. Perhaps hundreds of people. He has also probably had hundreds (thousands?) of people thank him for what he does.

After years of that kind of thing, pretty soon you start seeing the Mormon world via the eyes of the people who surround you. You start to inflate your own importance. You start tilting at windmills. You feel like more of a target as you enter the spotlight. You become more defensive, aggrieved. Maybe even more emboldened. "No one else is saying this, I didn't really mean to end up here, but here I am. I'm a good person. I'm honest. Thus my enemies must not be good people, nor honest."

And that's how Dehlin winds up roasting marshmallows with apostate Mormons talking about how he has shepherded many more people out of the church than he has kept in the church.

His context is warped, and I'm afraid, it is has led to his views being warped as well.

This is perhaps a generous take on Dehlin. The truth might not be so generous.

You're being charitable.

Dehlin is just a dipshit.

Seattle Ute is honest in that he didn't believe and left it at that.

Dehlin makes unbelief or disbelief a Holy Crusade.

So I just learned that since Dehlin declared that he is active again, and that he is much happier as an active member, donations to Mormon Stories plummeted. We can draw two inferences:

(1) John is moving in the right direction.
(2) Anti-'s knew that Mormon Stories is a faith-killer for many and were fuelling is efforts.