Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_mormonstories]

Pardon me. I thought we were talking about a "hit piece" that was supposed to be "100 pages," not a "multi-page, footnoted critique." My god, man! If someone can't write a critique then what can they do?

And no, I will not ask them. As I said, I believe your wacky theories - all of them.

Classic, classic apologetic dissembling.

[_lostindc]

There is eyewitness evidence of the existence of the "hit piece."

Yes, as I said, I believe this wacky conspiracy theory to be 100% true. After all, we have someone saying they saw something. That's proof enough for me!

I just saw Nessie. That's eyewitness proof right there!

Add to the fact, DCP did not deny the existence of the text in his recent post pertaining to the text.

Add to the fact that DCP did not deny the existence of Nessie, I think we have a solid case here, lostindc.

I wonder what else DCP didn't deny the existence of.....

Will,

I am not sure why you are trying to play peek-a-boo games. DCP et al. (FAIR folks) had the option of denying the existence of this hit piece. DCP has undertaken the time to discuss this very thread yet never denied the existence of the hit piece. So either he is not denying the hit piece because the hit piece exists or because DCP et al. want John Dehlin to feel threatened by the possibilities.

A simple acknowledgement or denial is all that is requested. The lack of the denial is a sign of guilt in this situation. There is nothing vague about the request. We are not discussing bigfoot, we are discussing a hit piece from DCP and gang that has been confirmed by several.

[Guest]

Taint it funny?

The protesters of the existence of the hit piece are the selfsame promoters of:
seer stones
golden plates
angels with flaming swords
Book of Abraham
civilizations for which not a scrap of evidence has been found in a 180 years of looking.

But if they follow John's suggestion and went to the horses mouth................ What do you think will happen?

Yes, veer from the subject at hand in a diversion tactic. We wouldn't want anyone else to know of the utter truthfulness of the conspiracy theory that BYU professors are attacking Mr. Dehlin with a "100 page hit piece" or was it a "critique"?

LOL

I am not sure why you are trying to play peek-a-boo games. DCP et al. (FAIR folks) had the option of denying the existence of this hit piece. DCP has undertaken the time to discuss this very thread yet never denied the existence of the hit piece. So either he is not denying the hit piece because the hit piece exists or because DCP et al. want John Dehlin to feel threatened by the possibilities.

I'm confused. You say it is a "hit piece," mormonstories says it is a "critique." Is no one allowed to write commentary on someone's work?

And, let's keep in mind that DCP had the opportunity to deny a lot of things (the existence of Bigfoot, for example), but he hasn't. That doesn't mean he's admitted to believing in such things.

A simple acknowledgement or denial is all that is requested. The lack of the denial is a sign of guilt in this situation. There is nothing vague about the request. We are not discussing bigfoot, we are discussing a hit piece from DCP and gang that has been confirmed by several.

If only we would all comply with your every request. Wouldn't that be nice?

[_Stormy Waters]

Taint it funny?

The protesters of the existence of the hit piece are the selfsame promoters of:
seer stones
golden plates
angels with flaming swords
Book of Abraham
civilizations for which not a scrap of evidence has been found in a 180 years of looking.

But if they follow John's suggestion and went to the horses mouth................ What do you think will happen?

I've prayed about it and I've recieved a spiritual witness of the existence of said hit piece. I feel warm inside, that means it's true right?

[_static]

Classic, classic apologetic dissembling.

Classic dismissal.

Is it a "100 page hit piece" or is it a "multi-page critique?"

We may never know. I think we should immediately censor all "critiques" in the world. That way, no one will have their feelings hurt.

[_lostindc]

I'm confused. You say it is a "hit piece," mormonstories says it is a "critique." Is no one allowed to write commentary on someone's work?

And, let's keep in mind that DCP had the opportunity to deny a lot of things (the existence of Bigfoot, for example), but he hasn't. That doesn't mean he's admitted to believing in such things.

Some see the Garden of Eden in Botticelli's Primavera whereas other see a giant 0rgy. At this point, I find any personal criticism of Dehlin to be nothing less than a hit piece. There is little reason for personal criticism birthed from DCP et al.

A simple acknowledgement or denial is all that is requested. The lack of the denial is a sign of guilt in this situation. There is nothing vague about the request. We are not discussing bigfoot, we are discussing a hit piece from DCP and gang that has been confirmed by several.

If only we would all comply with your every request. Wouldn't that be nice?[/quote]

Will,

Compliance with the request of acknowledgement or denial of this hit piece is simple courtesy, much like giving DCP et al. a voice on Mormon Stories.

Being that DCP et al. have decided to 'mess' with Dehlin suggests a very malicious attitude of the LDS apologetics posse.

[_lostindc]

Classic, classic apologetic dissembling.

Classic dismissal.

Is it a "100 page hit piece" or is it a "multi-page critique?"

We may never know. I think we should immediately censor all "critiques" in the world. That way, no one will have their feelings hurt.

Will,

Classic rebuttal. Simple distraction fallacies.

We are not asking for censoring of critiques rather an acknowledgement or denial of the existence of the text in discussion. Mundane, basic, sophistical devices will not distract the audience from the core phenomenon.

[_Buffalo]

Somebody please capture his post via copy/paste (oh wait, I already have).

It's so classic...and condemning. I have incontrovertible proof of 1) the existence of the essay/hit piece....2) his knowledge about it....3) the GA condemnation of the whole enterprise....and 4) his direct censure (as it relates to all this).....so his use of the word "alleged" stands as a classic, yet condemning example of his continued disingenuous-ness as an apologist. The only thing that keeps me from releasing the evidence is my respect for those (including the GA's) who have supported me -- but you can count on him and his followers to take advantage of me in this regard (plausible deniability -- another classic LDS apologetic tactic...it's their whole foundation...really...when you get right down to it).

Does anyone else note how sad it is that Daniel Peterson now communicates from a solo blog where he doesn't even allow comments.....that he no longer even has the ability or credibility to directly engage in the difficult conversations? This is LDS apologetics in the 20th and 21st centuries...retreat only to places where you are surrounded by supporters...because if you engage critics directly in a neutral forum....you come off looking so silly...as if you are trying to prove the location of Santa's workshop.

I really, honestly, truly feel sorry for Daniel Peterson, Mike Ash, Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Trevor Holyoak, John Lynch, Jack Welch, etc. They have built their houses upon sand, and now the foundation is slowly washing away. Even the brethren seem to see the writing on the wall (though we obviously have a long way to go in that regard). Still -- so much of their life's work is truly (and unfortunately) an embarrassment and damaging to the church, Mormonism and Mormons alike: a sad, destructive sham.

So I feel sorry for them that in some sense, they have been (and ultimately will be) left out to dry. As dupes. More importantly, I feel sorry for them that in trying to be helpful to the situation, they have only accelerated the pain/damage.....vs. served as a constructive part of the solution. The data from our survey are very clear (at least to me) -- LDS apologetics accelerate disaffection and disillusionment from the LDS church, because they are: 1) their responses are often mean-spirited and un-Christlike, and 2) they are simply not credible (i.e. tapirs, steel isn't steel, etc.)...so when someone who is truly struggling reads their stuff, they eventually walk away saying, "If this is the best that the church can do....then I'm outta here."

Up until now (2012), LDS apologetics have been a tragic, damaging, train-wreck-of-an embarrassment to everyone involved. May it rest in peace.

My suggestion to this board: At some point, it's time to ignore the troll(s)....and move on. They're just. not. credible...and honestly do not deserve our (or anyone's) attention any longer. The scholarly/scientific community ignores them (see previous comment about the North Pole). The believing bloggernacle ignores them (except to mock or condemn them). Mormonism writ large ignores them. It is only us (and the Deseret News) who gives them life/airplay. I think that the smartest thing Mormon Discussions could ever do would be to stop giving them air time...and let them fade away.

They are just....not....credible in any meaningful way, shape or form. They are a tragic, damaging joke. If I weren't so thoroughly exposed on a daily basis to the damage they have done (and continue to do) to thousands of Mormons and to the church, I would not speak so harshly. But I am....so I do.

My 2 cents.

My message to FAIR/FARMS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8

Please stop. You're hurting people. You're hurting the church. You are embarrassing yourselves, and Mormonism writ large. Please, please, please find another way. Anytime you want me help...I'll be there for you. I can help you. Just call or email. 435 227-5776 mormonstories@gmail.com

To quote from the chorus of "The Spirit of God,"

Amen, and amen.

[_Juggler Vain]

Classic, classic apologetic dissembling.

Classic dismissal.

Is it a "100 page hit piece" or is it a "multi-page critique?"

We may never know. I think we should immediately censor all "critiques" in the world. That way, no one will have their feelings hurt.

You seem to think that you have caught mormonstories making inconsistent statements about the document. You are either disingenuously pretending to misunderstand, or you really don't grasp the point of using the second description, rather than the first, in a question to DCP. You seem articulate enough that I would be surprised if you weren't being disingenuous, rather than just dumb, but I suppose everybody has lapses in judgment.

Nevertheless, I'll spell it out. When asking a question of somebody with an incentive to be evasive, it is important to phrase the question as broadly as possible, so they can't use the specificity of the question to say "no," when the answer is actually "yes." In this case, the phrase "multi-page critique" is broader than the phrase "100 page hit piece," and therefore covers more possible descriptions and perceptions of the document, which makes an evasive answer more difficult to pull off.

As an illustration, if the document is actually an 87 page document that DCP wouldn't personally characterize as a "hit piece", then asking him if he wrote, specifically, a "100 page hit piece" would result in a "no" from DCP, even though the document attacking Dehlin really does exist, in virtually the form the questioner suspects. Asking him, however, if there is a "multi-page critique" would more accurately describe this document, and force DCP to answer with a "yes." This all assumes that DCP is telling the truth. The phrasing of the question is irrelevant if the answerer is willing to lie.

(I would even say that the second phrase isn't broad enough to avoid an evasive answer.)

There isn't a conflict between those two phrases in the context in which mormonstories has used them, and you haven't scored a rhetorical point. Does that make sense to you now?

-JV

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does anyone else note how sad it is that Daniel Peterson now communicates from a solo blog where he doesn't even allow comments.....that he no longer even has the ability or credibility to directly engage in the difficult conversations? This is LDS apologetics in the 20th and 21st centuries...retreat only to places where you are surrounded by supporters...because if you engage critics directly in a neutral forum....you come off looking so silly...as if you are trying to prove the location of Santa's workshop.

The cowardice is remarkable. There was once upon a time when he would have at least posted this to the Mormon Dialogue Board, but now he's too chicken to even do that. This is how terrified he is of open discussion.

And it doesn't surprise me that he's unwilling to give a straightforward denial: he's frightened at the prospect of getting caught in a lie.