the narrator wrote:This was essentially the same comment I left on his blog. From what I understand, Bradford isn't against apologetics in general, but rather the pettiness exemplified in Bill's post.
When I first read this sentence from Dan's first public response to this issue:
Dan Peterson wrote:There are, as I see it, two main factors at play here: First is a genuine dislike for apologetics on the part of a relatively small group, including, to my very recent surprise, a minority faction within the Institute.
What I thought in my head was this:
Dan Peterson wrote:There are, as I see it, two main factors at play here: First is a genuine dislike for [my brand of] apologetics on the part of a relatively small group, including, to my very recent surprise, a minority faction within the Institute. [They asked me to stop engaging in ad hominem, defending misogyny, and siccing apologists on articles about Mormons at major magazines, and I refused.]
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
Have you ever seen one of those crazy crime scenarios on Law & Order, where a person is attacked and dies, the attacker is charged with murder, and then the coroner determines that the attack was not actually the cause of death, but that some rare, terminal disease was?
Maybe there was a plan sitting on some administrator's hard drive in the COB with a timeline that said, "Dismantle last remnants of FARMS in summer 2013." The Dehlin debacle occurs and the guy opens the file, taps the end of his pencil on his brow pensively, then reaches down to the keyboard, hits backspace, and replaces the 3 with a 2.
A call is made to Gerald Bradford.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I agree with why me (knock me over with a feather). I don't think Dan's demotion as editor of the Mormon Studies Review should have been effected by Bradford via email. I think that it should have been announced at General Conference by Dieter Uchtdorf or whoever is running the church right now. Clearly, the decision to sack Dan was not made by Bradford. He's just a patsy for the Big 15. They should have the cajones to take the action publicly and stand by it instead of hiding under Bradford's skirt. The old farts who run the LDS church are cowards, the lot of them. They should be ashamed of themselves. Whatever happened to "Standing for Something"? Whichever GA is the one who ordered Bradford to pull the trigger on Dan should have had the guts to tell Dan to his face. Why me is right: the leaders of the LDS church are craven.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Equality wrote:I agree with why me (knock me over with a feather). I don't think Dan's demotion as editor of the Mormon Studies Review should have been effected by Bradford via email. I think that it should have been announced at General Conference by Dieter Uchtdorf or whoever is running the church right now. Clearly, the decision to sack Dan was not made by Bradford. He's just a patsy for the Big 15. They should have the cajones to take the action publicly and stand by it instead of hiding under Bradford's skirt. The old farts who run the LDS church are cowards, the lot of them. They should be ashamed of themselves. Whatever happened to "Standing for Something"? Whichever GA is the one who ordered Bradford to pull the trigger on Dan should have had the guts to tell Dan to his face. Why me is right: the leaders of the LDS church are craven.
And now we have poor Dan laying in a puddle of blood, dead. The church killed him! The church betrayed the Holy Apologist of the Lord! The apologists have brought shame to the church. Just look how Bill is ranting on and on over at the other board. I swear, if the man had a gun, I'd run like hell. He is dangerous! The hell with the church. Call the cops!
Brent Metcalfe wrote:Although Bill Hamblin posted John Dehlin’s reply on his blog, mine doesn’t seem to be making the cut (Hamblin moderates his blog’s activity). So for those interested, here is the reply that I submitted to
Thanks Brent for writing such a thoughtful piece and posting for all eyes to see.
I would suggest that the reason Bill did not allow your comments to post is because he has no witty or snide come back. If you notice he allowed John's post because he (along with Schryver) are able to attack John on this GA thing. They consistently are trying to divert attention away from the real issue. They are only interested in attacking their enemies if they feel they can rally their troops. The apologists like Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin and their troops have no interest in true, dignity or honesty; for them it is all a war and they are out to destroy their opposition.
The problem for them is you spoke honest words, you pointed out the obvious in Bill's tirade and this just can not happen in Bill or Dan's world.