The Art of Anti-Mormon War

[_Fence Sitter]

Last I checked the email that let DCP know of the changes wasn't signed by Dehlin.

[_3sheets2thewind]

I sure wish apologists had the integrity to keep their word they make in their exit posts from here.....

[_Juggler Vain]

It was only John Dehlin himself, grounded in subjective psychological processes known only to himself, who decided that the 100 page article criticizing him and his views was an ad hominem attack, and who then appealed (whined?) to Bradford to have it spiked.

If you are already conceding that the 100-page article was specifically "criticizing him," then haven't you already undermined the point of your detective work -- you know, sowing doubt about whether or not there was ad hominem in the article?

-JV

[_MrStakhanovite]

Oh goodie, Droops is back with a brand new edition.

[_Droopy]

I sure wish apologists had the integrity to keep their word they make in their exit posts from here.....

See my disclaimer at the beginning of this thread.

[_Dr. Shades]

I sure wish apologists had the integrity to keep their word they make in their exit posts from here.....

See my disclaimer at the beginning of this thread.

Will you please copy-and-paste it into a reply? I looked for your disclaimer but couldn't find it.

Anyway, if Dehlin was wrong about the content of the hit piece, then why not prove him wrong? If it really wasn't an attack piece laden with ad hominem smears, then why not convince Greg Smith to start a thread at MD&D and paste the nixed review into the opening post?

[_Droopy]

If you are already conceding that the 100-page article was specifically "criticizing him," then haven't you already undermined the point of your detective work -- you know, sowing doubt about whether or not there was ad hominem in the article?

So then, in your world, any criticism whatsoever of anyone's ideas, arguments, agenda, position, viewpoint, conduct, or "side" in an ongoing confrontation between values and beliefs is, by definition, ad hominem?

With a bar that high, Dehlin will remain, of course, untouchable, as nothing said about him and his ideas and purposes, unless they are either supportive or neutral, could ever pass muster as legitimate criticism.

There also remains the problem and question of the possibility that any ad hominem statements in such an essay might be, well...true.

If they are, and they are relevant to the overall intellectual case against him, should such always be barred from consideration?

Since, however, no one has yet read the piece, all we have is Dehlin's story, which could in principle be accurate, but could also very well be, to a great extent, a self serving fabrication.

[Guest]

Will you please copy-and-paste it into a reply? I looked for your disclaimer but couldn't find it.

It was in my first post on the "What motivates a man like John Dehlin" thread:

(Note: I have returned to this forum for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to deal with this issue and provide some counterpoint and alternative perspective in what now is a full fledged echo chamber. lI will not be engaging anyone on any other subject, or entertaining any ad hominem cut down contests that will arise due to my very presence here).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24395&p=603124&hilit=full+fledged+echo+chamber.#p603124

Anyway, if Dehlin was wrong about the content of the hit piece, then why not prove him wrong? If it really wasn't an attack piece laden with ad hominem smears, then why not convince Greg Smith to start a thread at MD&D and paste the nixed review into the opening post?

Or, you can ask him yourself. The point is, no one here has the slightest idea what the essay actually contains, but all are cock-sure that Dehlin is telling the truth because Dehlin is in the High School clique; he's one of the cool, popular people - one of that odd, contemporary Joanna Brooksesque variety of faithful, believing apostates or quasi-apostates (we'll call them post-normal Mormons) who are Mormons yet non Mormons.

They are the Un-Mormons.

And that's where it ends.

[_robuchan]

This isn't about John Dehlin. Does it matter if Dehlin is proven to be an intellectual fraud with a personal agenda?

Go ahead and assume John Dehlin is an enemy to the church. Also go ahead and assume the church is run by men savvy enough to understand this.

This saga is not Peterson vs Dehlin. This is the church vs Peterson. The church didn't like what he was doing and removed him from his position.

[_Droopy]

This isn't about John Dehlin.

Well, it most patently is, to a great degree.

Does it matter if Dehlin is proven to be an intellectual fraud with a personal agenda?

It would seem so, yes.

Go ahead and assume John Dehlin is an enemy to the church.

Of course he is. He's made that crystal clear. His entire Mormon Stories project is grounded in a counter-LDS mindset and worldview.

Also go ahead and assume the church is run by men savvy enough to understand this.

They are, yes.

This saga is not Peterson vs Dehlin. This is the church vs Peterson. The church didn't like what he was doing and removed him from his position.

That is John Delin's story. From your vantage point, it is nothing more than wild, preconceived speculation.