Big news in LDS apologetic circles

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Dan Peterson (and presumably his associates Louis Midgley, George Mitton, Gregory Smith, and Robert White) have been given the boot from the Maxwell Institute.

Maxwell Institute News Page: A New Beginning for the Mormon Studies Review

Word on the street seems to indicate that the Maxwell institute wishes get out of the business of directly confronting arguments and criticisms directed at the church and its tenets.

Leaked internal memos show that Prof. Peterson strenuously disagrees with the move. And he is not going quietly.

Sic Et Non (Daniel Peterson's Blog): Of Gratitude, and Its Expression

My testimony came about by study, faith, prayer, and direct personal revealation. But much of the boldness I've cultivated in expressing it, came from Dan Peterson and FARMS. In fact, I gave myself my current screen name after I considered myself adequately schooled by Peterson and FARMS in apologetics.

[Vort]

How sad. Changes must often be made, and perhaps this is for the best. But the amateurish way it is being handled is very regrettable.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

To unceremoniously fire Dr. Daniel Peterson via e-mail is beyond the pale. And to think- Bradford didn't even give the other board members that courtesy. Apparently, Midgley is still unaware of these developments- being somewhere foreign with no internet access.

[Maureen]

This is being discussed to death at the Mormon dialogue and discussion board. I came across this article regarding the whole change occuring at MI that I found very interesting. I also found some of the comments thought provoking.

Did John Dehlin Bring Down the Mormon Studies Review: (Hint: the answer has two letters?)

M.

[annewandering]

What I dont get about this whole thing is why no one questions that someone, who is clearly an apostate and a liar, actually has support from any general authority at all.
I do not believe it for a minute. Give us a name, dear sir. Or drop claims of support.
How easy it is for liars and apostates to grab media attention and cause dissension. It would not surprise me to see an apostate church under his direction. He apparently has one already except for the legal technicalities.

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by annewandering

What I dont get about this whole thing is why no one questions that someone, who is clearly an apostate and a liar, actually has support from any general authority at all.
I do not believe it for a minute. Give us a name, dear sir. Or drop claims of support.
How easy it is for liars and apostates to grab media attention and cause dissension. It would not surprise me to see an apostate church under his direction. He apparently has one already except for the legal technicalities.

IMO, I don't see John Dehlin as an apostate or liar and I have checked out many of the interviews done at Mormon Stories. Dan Peterson was even interviewed, which I thought was great, since it's better to hear a person's thoughts from their own mouth, then speculate how they really see things. I enjoyed the Dan Peterson interview.

I'm just curious about Gerald Bradford at MI; what is his vision for MI and why's he's gone about changing things in such an awkward way. Why would people even suspect that John Dehlin's situation had anything to do with the firing of Mr. Peterson and others. I understand that a GA may have had some influence in the non-publishing of Greg Smith's piece but could Smith's article and MI's changes really be related? It's hard to know if all my questions will be answered, but I am curious to see the changes that will happen at MI.

M.

[annewandering]

I think it just may be that they dont want to be seen as confrontational. Some people do not hesitate to fight back but a lot of people do not feel comfortable with anyone doing that. They would rather just go about doing their jobs, believing in the church and not wanting to hear arguing.
Personally, I find it very difficult to not fight back so I can understand that point of view best but I do see the other sides point.
What I object to the strongest is the man claiming/implying he has GA support for his views. If that is completely true then I see someone being excommunicated.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Maureen

IMO, I don't see John Dehlin as an apostate or liar and I have checked out many of the interviews done at Mormon Stories.

Until fairly recently, he represented himself as a faithful and believing Mormon in full fellowship, seeking to help other struggling Saints transition. This is demonstrably false.

[prisonchaplain]

I have found this discussion interesting and a bit confusing. This article helped me put it together: Mormon Chronicles: Mormon Stories vs Mormon Apologists

If I read it correctly, it is the apologists who believe that Dehlin has some influence with at least one General Authority. So, it might be true that some in leadership want to see a gentler approach taken towards those who say, "I believe, but help my unbelief." This article also suggests that the apologists did more than defend the faith--they "named and blamed" those they believed had gone astray, without leaving.

[livy111us]

Since John Dehlin does not believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet, The Book of Mormon to be the word of God, questions the existence of God, and has led many people out of the Church, I think it's safe to say he is apostate.