Doctor Scratch wrote:Okay, so I guess I may as well relay this information to the rest of the community. As always, treat this "intel" with skepticism, because I can't confirm it, and the publicly noticeable people involved will likely deny it. That said, I have rather reliable reasons to believe that Professor Daniel C. Peterson actually commissioned the so-called "hit piece" on John Dehlin. This is entirely in spite of the fact that DCP appeared as a guest on Dehlin's podcast, which may indicate that Peterson appeared simply as a kind of tactical "pre-move."
My own thoughts on this are as follows: I think this is at least somewhat credible in light of the information that has come to light in the wake of the MI "shake-up", namely: Bill Hamblin's ill-advised blog postings; Will Schryver's comments; the manic, pro-FARMS outcry against Dehlin; Dan Peterson's increasingly close alliance with Will Schryver and his "anti-5th Column" rhetoric, and so on.
Based on all this, it may very well be that there was some backroom, Skinny-L chit-chat about how these Mopologists viewed Dehlin as a "threat," and that they decided to lay out a plot to destroy him. Per what I was told, it was Dan Peterson himself who asked for someone to contribute the "dagger-eyed" article--in other words, he was the one who "Gave the Order." Obviously, it didn't work out, but I just wanted to relate what I was told.
Again: I cannot verify this, so treat it with caution.
Onward Mopolgists wrote:'Onward, Mopologists, marching as to war, With the Book of Mormon going on before. Dan, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see His banners go!'
Last edited by Guest on Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sock puppet wrote:'Onward, Mopologists, marching as to war, With the Book of Mormon going on before. Dan, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see His banners go!'
Heh.
You know, there are ways that they could have spun this. They could have said that it was all Greg Smith's idea, and that he had noticed some "problems" in Dehlin's podcasts, but it's clearly too late for that now. They let slip that this was really a concerted, multi-person effort, with several different people combing through the podcasts, stalking J. Dehlin on Facebook, and so on. It's something that they clearly plotted out and strategized over. And when you've got something like that underway, you need a "Kingpin" to call the shots. Well, it just so happens that this Kingpin went on to the selfsame podcast and pretended to be "friendly" to the cause.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
RayAgostini wrote: Do you feel it's appropriate to post something you can't verify?
See generally:Ufology
You didn't oughta've posted that, Darth J.
I think the State Department now urgently needs to put out an advisory addressed to US citizens visiting Australia, warning them to check out all cab drivers before taking a ride: if the guy is muttering about stuff like "apostates", "the saucer people" and "righteous judgements of the Lord", just smile, nod in a friendly way, and get the hell out.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I've been lurking, only recently, so I'm perhaps not well informed about all the angles of this issue. I ask indulgence for my ignorance.
This is my question, particularly for those familiar with academic publishing here. The Dehlin piece, as I understand it, was to be essentially an ad hominem attack on Dehlin's motivations and character. This would presumably disqualify him as a commentator on issues relating to Mormonism. Have I got that correct?
My question is whether it is usual in academic publications (into which category, I take it, FARMS under the direction of DCP strove to place itself) to resort to attacking the message bearer, as it were, rather than the message itself? The theory, not the philosopher, it seems to me, should be the issue. Or am I missing some current in contemporary academic discourse?
I ask because I don't know how debate is conducted these days.
Philidel wrote:I've been lurking, only recently, so I'm perhaps not well informed about all the angles of this issue. I ask indulgence for my ignorance.
This is my question, particularly for those familiar with academic publishing here. The Dehlin piece, as I understand it, was to be essentially an ad hominem attack on Dehlin's motivations and character. This would presumably disqualify him as a commentator on issues relating to Mormonism. Have I got that correct?
My question is whether it is usual in academic publications (into which category, I take it, FARMS under the direction of DCP strove to place itself) to resort to attacking the message bearer, as it were, rather than the message itself? The theory, not the philosopher, it seems to me, should be the issue. Or am I missing some current in contemporary academic discourse?
I ask because I don't know how debate is conducted these days.
Welcome, Philidel. I think you've got a good handle on it. Ad hom attacks aim to do just what you have described, and it is unusual that such attack pieces would be published in a truly academic publication, which says much about the FARMS Review.