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.