for what it's worth, my review of Greg Smith's "review" of Mormon Stories

[_Harold Lee]

I'm betting whyme actually got to read some of those emails, you do the math from there. No evidence.

[_why me]

Bill has claimed that his department is still getting hateful emails about him. Lets face it, it is a critic tactic.

Has anyone beside Bill seen this emails or made this claim. We only have his word for it. And that is not good enough.

Now cwald, lets use our brains on this. Do you really believe John's supporters were not put into action? Do you really believe that the critics and john's friends would remain silent during this 'dirty, nasty, affair?'

[_Darth J]

No, I have no evidence whatsoever for my assertions that a bunch of anti-Mormons rallied to suppress an article that it would be in their interest to see in print, but I will keep babbling away anyway, because that's how it works in my fantasy world.

[_cwald]

Now cwald, lets use our brains on this. Do you really believe John's supporters were not put into action? Do you really believe that the critics and john's friends would remain silent during this 'dirty, nasty, affair?'

Fine. Bill can solve this riddle. Lets see them. Put up or shut up.

[_Kishkumen]

Now cwald, lets use our brains on this.

Nice way to force cwald to do the heavy lifting there, why me.

[_stemelbow]

Dehlin:

1) Believing (and having data) that Mormon apologetic ad hominem does damage to pretty much everyone it touches (the church, BYU, the Maxwell Institute, FAIR, the apologists themselves, the targets of the ad hominem, disaffected LDS, TBM's etc.). So yes, I was a target, and that never feels fun, but that was only one factor of many.

So again I ask, if ad hominem and personal attacks are seen as so bad to you why have you attacked these apologist folks with ad hominem?

[_mormonstories]

My two biggest concerns about Greg's articles are the following:

1) Does he give fair consideration to the many faith-promoting interviews I've attempted to conduct, and to the many apologetic and/or believers that I've tried to interview on Mormon Stories -- INCLUDING members of FAIR. Of course I have had my biases and internal conflicts over time, but I've tried harder than any other podcast I know of to be as fair/balanced as possible. Just check out this list of "faithful" interviews:

http://mormonstories.org/category/faith/

Did Smith give any fair consideration to these?

2) Hundreds and hundreds of people over the years have "testified" that Mormon Stories has helped them STAY in the church.

http://mormonstories.org/you-the-church ... n-stories/ (see the comments)

Did he give any mention to these stories/testimonials to provide at least some balance to the accusations that Mormon Stories leads people away from the church?

Those are my two biggest concerns about his interview. They really condense into one primary concern -- he didn't even make an attempt at fairness or objectivity. It was a hit piece from start to finish.

[Guest]

So again I ask, if ad hominem and personal attacks are seen as so bad to you why have you attacked these apologist folks with ad hominem?

stemelbow,

I'm not always successful, but I have tried to focus on criticizing the behaviors/tactics of the individuals in question (Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Greg Smith, etc.) - and not to question their motives or their quality of worth as individuals.

Again, I'm sure that I have sometimes lost my temper, but I know of no other way to address my concerns with their ad hominem tactics than to: 1) gather data on the damaging effects of their tactics ( http://whymormonsquestion.org ), and 2) openly discuss and criticize these tactics (since they won't discuss these things with me directly -- something I would warmly invite...even now...especially if we could record it for others to hear).

If you want to call that ad hominem, that's your choice, but that seems like a distraction to me. If we're gonna move to a better place, we have to talk about these things.

Also, I don't feel like I've ever stooped as low as to question someone's sincerity, or their worthiness to hold a temple recommend....etc. I'm also really disappointed with...

-- the stuff that Greg Smith selectively drudged up to prove his point (leaving out all the faithful interviews I've conducted, and all the testimonies of people who claim that M.S. has helped them stay in the church),

-- the stuff that Greg Smith took out of context to make his point (accusing me of not supporting the law of chastity, for example?!?!?)

All that is really awful (in my point of view), and deserves to be called out.

Can you find many instances of me personally attacking or insulting these folks -- or trying to discredit their character or integrity? My emphasis (I believe) has been on their tactics/behavior....though ...there might have been a few things said in anger/frustration...I don't know. See what you can dig up.

Finally, I think the point that speaks most loudly is that the GA's and BYU administration were clearly in my corner on this one...and shared my criticism of these tactics. Again...call it ad hominem if you wish....but I think the fact that the GA's and the BYU officials (including its president) sided with me seems to be something that you guys conveniently want to avoid addressing.

[_Darth J]

Dehlin:

1) Believing (and having data) that Mormon apologetic ad hominem does damage to pretty much everyone it touches (the church, BYU, the Maxwell Institute, FAIR, the apologists themselves, the targets of the ad hominem, disaffected LDS, TBM's etc.). So yes, I was a target, and that never feels fun, but that was only one factor of many.

So again I ask, if ad hominem and personal attacks are seen as so bad to you why have you attacked these apologist folks with ad hominem?

If I may briefly interrupt your nonstop frenzy to derail anything that second guesses your Mopologist heroes:

The ad hominem fallacy does not simply mean "you said something mean about me." It means raising irrelevant accusations about a person's character to distract from the matter at issue. When Moplogists try to characterize everyone who disputes the faith-promoting narrative as a puppet of Satan, it does not address the issues of severe problems with LDS truth claims. Not only are Moplogists making people hostile to Mormonism who otherwise might not be, they are not doing what they purport to do (answer criticisms of their cherished beliefs).

Demonstrating a speaker's/writer's use of the ad hominem fallacy is not itself the ad hominem fallacy.

Now you may resume your duties here:

[_stemelbow]

stemelbow,

I'm not always successful, but I have tried to focus on criticizing the behaviors/tactics of the individuals in question (Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley, Bill Hamblin, Greg Smith, etc.) - and not to question their motives or their quality of worth as individuals.

That's good. we all try. I'm sure Dr Peterson,for instance, tries too. Sadly, I simly haven't seen him, nor Greg Smith, call you a pathetic person or a pathological deceiver, no?

Again, I'm sure that I have sometimes lost my temper, but I know of no other way to address my concerns about their ad hominem tactics than to: 1) gather data on the effects of their tactics ( http://whymormonsquestion.org ), and 2) discuss and criticize their tactics.

So your view is that not only is this Greg Smith piece poor, but all of these folks (who exactly that all entails is a question I would liek to follow with) attack individuals, right?

If you want to call that ad hominem, that's your choice, but that seems like a distraction to me. If we're gonna move to a better place, we have to talk about these things. And all I can say is (something you guys conveniently want to avoid addressing) is that the GA's and BYU administration were in my corner on this one...and shared my criticism of these tactics. Again...call it ad hominem if you wish....but I think that's a distraction tactic.

Cool. So which GA's and which BYU admins are you talking about? In essence, I"m asking for a CFR here.

Thanks again.