More Pieces of the Dehlin Debacle Puzzle

[_Drifting]

Could someone give me some insight into how anyone, in their right mind, could try and place any blame on Dehlin for the death of these missionaries? From the story it appears they were on the boat going to obtain a birth certificate for a wedding. How could Dehlin possibly be to blame?
These people are insane.

Sheesh, at least the Paul Pry stuff with Grant Palmer had some element of truth to it. This reminds more of when they were trying to accuse Michael Quinn of cruising gay bars in Utah while teaching at BYU.

Or Peterson surfing for boners when he's meant to be on an all expenses paid junket to the middle earth....errr....east....

[_Kishkumen]

Here's my question: Why are the people at Patheos allowing him to do this stuff? They need to kick him off and let him carry on with this sort of thing without their endorsement. He's going to wind up dragging them down, too.

This is the question that nags at me most. It seems that Prof. P. has decided to use Patheos as a platform to continue to fight his battles. For all of those who are not familiar with his online spats, this has to be rather discombobulating. They click on his blog to see what a prominent BYU professor has to say about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they are treated to something like this:

I understand that there are several people out there in the ether (I’m betting, from long experience, that they’re anonymous, though I haven’t seen their statements at first hand) claiming to have read the now notorious paper about the work of John Dehlin that the late Mormon Studies Review was instructed not to run, and claiming, further, that it attempts to tie John Dehlin to a missionary’s death in Central America, or, even, to the deaths of several missionaries there.

These people have not read the paper. Or, if they did, they are lying about what they saw.

Er, what?

It appears that we are not the only ones to have raised such questions either:

I did see one comment, though, that wondered whether this blog represents the kind of thing that ought to be on Patheos. I’m not competent to speak to that subject. (I’m aware that at least one vocal individual out there has voted an emphatic and public “No!”) But I can say this: For months before I came to Patheos, I was blogging elsewhere about religion, politics, movies, music, and just about anything that came to my mind. I was happy doing it, and happy where I was. I even had some readers. (Far more than I had expected.) Now that I’m here, and for as long as I’m here, I intend to continue doing what I was doing. I didn’t approach Patheos to blog on their site. They approached me, knowing full well the kind of things I blog about. I responded that I didn’t want to change my approach, and they replied that I didn’t need to change my approach. I had already turned down an invitation to move the blog to a place where they wanted me to concentrate only on religious issues.

So, either the Patheos folks did not look at his various posts very closely, or certain apologetic allies have connections. Or, I suppose it could be that rants about warfare with anonymous people are exactly the kind of thing the Patheos is looking for.

[_Drifting]

discombobulating.

I think we have a winner in the 'word of the day' competition...

[_Kishkumen]

Here is yet another funny sidebar rant from Prof. P.'s blog:

I understand that, elsewhere on Patheos, there is a blog entry from some anonymous person decrying the “violent language” that the FARMS Review (more recently, albeit briefly, the Mormon Studies Review) allegedly often deployed against its targets under what others, elsewhere, have memorably called my “reign of terror” there.

I deny this, and I note that the blogger provides no examples. I understand that the supposed mean-spiritedness and viciousness of the Review have long since taken on the status of self-evident truths in certain fairly small circles, but the actual evidence for such vicious cruelty and callousness is, to put it mildly, thin. (And the ironic truth, of what it’s worth, is that not a few of those most given to reciting the mantra of our horrific nastiness are, themselves, routinely and regularly guilty of saying things about me and my associates and the Review that I, at least, would never say, and have never said, about anybody.)

But perhaps the anonymous blogger, who appears to be a Latter-day Saint, is actually upset about “violent language” in such hymns as “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” “Up, Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion” (especially in its original version), and “Hope of Israel, Rise in Might!” and assumes that I wrote them.

For the record, I didn’t.

[_Cicero]

Here is yet another funny sidebar rant from Prof. P.'s blog:

But perhaps the anonymous blogger, who appears to be a Latter-day Saint, is actually upset about “violent language” in such hymns as “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” “Up, Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion” (especially in its original version), and “Hope of Israel, Rise in Might!” and assumes that I wrote them.

For the record, I didn’t.

[/quote]

Don't you love how he seems to deny being belligerent . . . but then can't help essentially admitting it by referring to hymns he does?

[_harmony]

Here is yet another funny sidebar rant from Prof. P.'s blog:

(And the ironic truth, of what it’s worth, is that not a few of those most given to reciting the mantra of our horrific nastiness are, themselves, routinely and regularly guilty of saying things about me and my associates and the Review that I, at least, would never say, and have never said, about anybody.)

Oh, brother. If Dan was known to defend the defenseless, it would be one thing. Obviously that is not the case.

[_Kishkumen]

Don't you love how he seems to deny being belligerent . . . but then can't help essentially admitting it by referring to hymns he does?

Very little of what he writes surprises me any longer.

[_harmony]

Here is yet another funny sidebar rant from Prof. P.'s blog:

But perhaps the anonymous blogger, who appears to be a Latter-day Saint, is actually upset about “violent language” in such hymns as “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” “Up, Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion” (especially in its original version), and “Hope of Israel, Rise in Might!” and assumes that I wrote them.

For the record, I didn’t.

Don't you love how he seems to deny being belligerent . . . but then can't help essentially admitting it by referring to hymns he does?[/quote]

I think he was trying to be funny. One must give credit where credit is due.

[_Cicero]

I think he was trying to be funny. One must give credit where credit is due.

I would be willing to do that if I actually thought it was funny.

[_harmony]

I think he was trying to be funny. One must give credit where credit is due.

I would be willing to do that if I actually thought it was funny.

His humor is an acquired taste.