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

[Guest]

All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.[/color]

No, what you are doing is trying to deny the existence of something which Dehlin claims he has incontrovertible proof of. We know John Dehlin. We know that it is not at all likely that he fabricated the existence of this critique written by Greg Smith. On the other side, we have a cast of characters whose little white lies about numerous documents and events are fairly well known around here.

As for me, I will believe that Greg Smith wrote a long critique of John Dehlin, which might colorfully be described as a "hit piece" in its intention of tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Dehlin, that Daniel Peterson supported its publication in a BYU housed journal, and that a GA intervened to stop its publication. I have good reason to disbelieve that John Dehlin would risk his reputation for general probity by inventing these facts.

On the other hand, you are an anonymous prevaricator who has split words, has defended characters as dubious as Will Schryver, and who to my eyes reads a lot like Greg Smith. You are not so much denying the existence of a critique as questioning the characterization of it as a hit piece, in so many words. Everything you have written has been designed as a distraction. If you are Greg Smith, Will Schryver, or one of their cronies, then you have do business decrying "tearing others down" or taking anyone to task for allegedly doing so. It is either your stock and trade, or you defend your friends when they engage in it.

[_static]

Essentially calls John a liar while at the same time calling for compassion. Splits hairs on hit piece/critique.

Got anything else of value to add, Static?

For the record, I don't think John is a liar. I don't even know him. I do think there is a lot of wacky conspiracy theory "shock therapy" going on in this thread, and I think it wise to use our reason and compassion to figure out what is really going on rather than succumb to tabloidery (yes, I made that word up).

Saying "hit piece" and "critique" are two very, very different things. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't differentiate between the two terms? Are all movie reviews "hit pieces?"

[_Kishkumen]

I have incontrovertible proof of Bigfoot. Is that enough for you?[/color]

I have incontrovertible proof that you are a dipstick. This thread.

[_Juggler Vain]

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.

Forgive me if one is not supposed to read the opening post of a thread in order to determine what might be discussed in said thread.

You apparently didn't bother to read, or didn't comprehend, what I wrote. Again, I'm not sure whether you are disingenuous or dense. When you clumsily showed up on this board, you were promptly caught in an idiotic lie. So, I'm leaning toward "dense."

-JV

[_static]

Kishkumen, have you seen all the hit pieces written about The Avengers?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/

[_Willy Law]

I have incontrovertible proof of Bigfoot. Is that enough for you?

I have spent almost 3 years getting to know John Dehlin. There are not too many people in this world that match his honesty and integrity.
You, on the other hand, are a cowardly anonymous poster...like myself. So no, I would not take your word as proof of bigfoot or angels with flaming swords or peep stones or buried golden plates protected by zombies.

[_static]

You apparently didn't bother to read, or didn't comprehend, what I wrote. Again, I'm not sure whether you are disingenuous or dense. When you clumsily showed up on this board, you were promptly caught in an idiotic lie. So, I'm leaning toward "dense."

-JV

I'm glad you think it proper to equate hit piece with critique. I shall immediately inform Roger Ebert.

[_Kishkumen]

Saying "hit piece" and "critique" are two very, very different things. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't differentiate between the two terms? Are all movie reviews "hit pieces?"[/color]

We could have a very long argument about individual reviews in BYU journals that we would call "hit pieces" and you evidently would call "critiques." I doubt we would come to an agreement on that issue. I would say that in LDS culture, any piece that calls into question the good faith and intentions of another LDS person whose membership is in good standing, which tries to paint him as a threat to the Church, or as a "wrong-thinking" person, which tries, whether insidiously or implicitly or explicitly, to frighten other people away from that person and his or her writings, or accuses that person of apostasy or being in danger of apostasy is a "hit piece." I could expatiate for a long time on this, but I would note that I have read many reviews in the FARMS Review and in other apologetic organs that qualify in my eyes. We probably would not agree on my judgment. I am not restricted by your sense of the term "hit piece" in order to be justified in using the term. For you, critique is what I would see as a euphemism for much worse things.

[_lostindc]

You seem to be everything John was claiming about apologists wrapped up in one hurtful, obtuse little man. And you wonder why questioning members of the church run to the critics side (like I did) when they see this type of dialogue from the church's apologists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.

wow, who sent you here to begin mop-up-duty?

It is very clear you want to change the public perceptions on the text from a hit piece to a simple critique of Dehlin. Unfortunately, clever rhetorical excursions will not hide the intent of this hit piece.

I am willing to state: if this hit piece continues to rise in notoriety then DCP will finally and utterly completely fall. In the eyes of the public, DCP will never be taken seriously as he reaches the same infamy as Paul Dunn. A great deal of weight and possibly precedence will result from this mess.

[_Juggler Vain]

You apparently didn't bother to read, or didn't comprehend, what I wrote. Again, I'm not sure whether you are disingenuous or dense. When you clumsily showed up on this board, you were promptly caught in an idiotic lie. So, I'm leaning toward "dense."

-JV

I'm glad you think it proper to equate hit piece with critique. I shall immediately inform Roger Ebert.

Now I'm sure the answer is "dense." Thanks.

-JV