In a Patheos post entitled "The Odd Couple: Story and Community", Rosalynde Welch claims that John Dehlin's Mormon Stories project has a contradiction at its center. She explains that Mormon Stories defines itself on two axes: Both as a supportive social ecosystem, and as a purveyor of what it calls "authentic self-expression", and suggests these two goals are in direct conflict with one another. While she finds nothing sinister about Dehlin or his project, in the end Welch concludes that Mormon Stories seems like little more than a textbook liberal mini-institution, similar to a high school gay-straight alliance, and about as important. But her piece was a civil and principled critique.
In a Mormon Mentality post entitled "Don’t Trust Rosalynde Welch’s Investigation of Mormon Stories", DKL takes Welch's assessment way too personally and overreacts. DKL characterizes Welch’s report as lacking maturity and perspective in its own right, accusing her of misrepresenting Mormon Stories at every turn, and pans Welch's discussion of the issues surrounding Mormon Stories as both confused and confusing.
But what about the man at the center of the debate? Rumors have swirled about John Dehlin's role, if any, in the firing of Daniel Peterson. Some say Dehlin consulted a Seventy, others say he cried on an Apostle's shoulder, and still others say that Dehlin is an innocent little lamb who would never harm a fly. But what has escaped many is that Dehlin himself actually addressed this issue, but back in early May of this year, when the dispute first broached.
It turns out that on May 10th, 2012, John Dehlin owned up to contacting a General Authority (GA) to complain about Peterson, but contrary to some misconception, did not recommend that Peterson actually be fired. Dehlin addressed the issue on Mormon Discussions; here's the applicable part of his post:
6) I decided to contact a GA friend of mine to let him know about the piece, and to ask him to intervene. Given Midgley's verbal allegations, I was not about to be slandered in that way, and I honestly felt like such an article would sully Neil A. Maxwell's good name, and would be damaging to BYU, the church, and to many members of the church who value what we do with Mormon Stories. The GA told me that he would contact a few people in high places, and that he would do his best to intervene.
7) A few days later I was informed by a very, very reliable source that some very clear communication was given to the Maxwell Institute that publishing this article about me was ill advised, and that an apostle was involved in that communication. I was informed that the decision was made to no longer publish the article via the Maxwell Institute, and that it would be returned to its author, Greg Smith. I was also told to not be surprised if the article ended up being published by FAIR.
Dehlin did not disclose the identity of the GA, although Daniel Peterson says it was a member of the Seventy. But this account clearly shows that it was the GA in question who brought a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles into the mix, and NOT Dehlin.
Why did Dehlin react so strongly and go to a GA, considering that Dehlin never actually saw the proposed article? Not just because of the reasons listed in the excerpt. During a conference at Utah Valley University, several people who are faithful members of the Church told him that they were aware of the article written about him, and were sickened by it -- including people who had read it. In addition, a person by the name of Lou Midgley threatened Dehlin during the same conference, attempting to tie him to the death of a missionary (Brian Bartholomew) during his mission. But Dehlin said that he believes the "old school, disingenuous, ad hominem-style apologetics a la Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley" are damaging to the church, to its members, to its former members, and to its targets.
This shows that John Dehlin did want to stop publication of the article, which can be construed as a form of censorship. But nowhere is there evidence that Dehlin actually wanted Daniel Peterson to be fired. The distinction is important for the sake of integrity, if nothing else.
