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

[_Blixa]

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

Let me ask you this, static. How many apologetic venues operate out of BYU? What are the potential social and religious ramifications of the critiques that come out of a source that is published under the BYU masthead, so to speak?

How does that possibly compare well with countless reviews of films in newspapers around the country? Are they organized by a single editor operating under the special authority of something identified as the Film Industry, Inc., which might excommunicate you based on the views promulgated in such publications?

Your analogy is ridiculous. We all know that a harsh critique in a BYU journal has potential consequences that are quite different from harsh reviews of a film coming from disparate voices published in countless newspapers across the land.

Classic Simon Belmont.

[_Kishkumen]

I think you've hit on a very important idea.

Yes, I have, but you managed to twist it into something quite different in no time flat.

It is very easy to mock and criticize the church because of it organized nature. It is also extremely easy to mock and criticize LDS apologetic institutions because of their (mostly) organized nature. Critics of the church are much less organized.

Sorry, the issue of this thread is criticism of Greg Smith and Daniel Peterson. Not criticism of the Church. Of course, you, Screwtape, will change the subject at your convenience to confuse the issue. As we can plainly see, although people like Smith and Peterson have their supporters within the LDS Church, their attacks on fellow members are not supported by all of the General Authorities, and members of the Church are free to join those Authorities in their disapproval. I have no criticism, but rather high praise, for the Church Authority who quashed the Dehlin hit piece. Obviously he is a man of great character.

So, in the end, we can see that there is no evidence, aside from jaded hearsay, that there ever was a "hit piece" in the works, or that the dastardly DCP may have written a (gasp!) multi-page critique.

(No! Say it 'ain't so! Anything but a multi-page critique!)[/color]

1. John Dehlin is witness to the existence of the hit piece.

2. No one is saying Peterson wrote it because it was written by Greg Smith.

3. The General Authority must have quashed the article for a good reason; the GA wouldn't have intervened if the piece had been merely a measured critique. Thus we can conclude that hit piece is not an unreasonably inferred description of it.

4. You have been shown to be a liar, so your conclusions are of little consequence.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, I suppose if we're okay equating hit piece with critique, why not logistic with well-funded?

Here's a graphic that might help you, Buffalo.

I have a formula that may help your struggling cogitations, static:

Greg Smith + Daniel Peterson does not equal the LDS Church.

And Blixa is right; this business of the Church under siege is a classic Belmontism.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The different-colored font and the half-hearted / "quirky" spelling and punctuation are classic Belmont moves, too.

[_stemelbow]

1. John Dehlin is witness to the existence of the hit piece.

asked of John on page 1: "Bombshell! John, have you seen the piece?"


John responds: "No."

2. No one is saying Peterson wrote it because it was written by Greg Smith.

Interestingly enough John and others are going after Peterson. Go figure.

3. The General Authority must have quashed the article for a good reason; the GA wouldn't have intervened if the piece had been merely a measured critique. Thus we can conclude that hit piece is not an unreasonably inferred description of it.

Maybe it had a swear word in it. it seems we'll never know. So why continue on with this? Oh right...good drama for those who hate certain Mormons.

4. You have been shown to be a liar, so your conclusions are of little consequence.

Everyone has lied, Kishkumen, just like you did in this very post of yours accusing others of lying (see your point 1 again).

[_Buffalo]

Mopologists are at a disadvantage because they're organized and well-funded? Are you sure that's the reason?

Well, I suppose if we're okay equating hit piece with critique, why not logistic with well-funded?

Here's a graphic that might help you, Buffalo.

Are you saying the Maxwell institute is incapable of mounting multiple attacks? Did you miss the six criticism of Grant Palmer?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Stemelbow:

Do you think John is lying? And if not, do you think he was lied to by the General Authoity/ies who interevened?

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

Do you think John is lying?

'bout what? When he claimed DCP denied the existence of an essay? That was a lie, sure. Do I think he is lying about what? I don't see much claimed by him except that he doesn't like Daniel Peterson and wants to mock the guy. Kinda like you. "hit piece"? I don't' know. people can consider this thread a hit piece if one wants. Its a pretty subjective and dramatic claim. Do I care? Not at all.

And if not, do you think he was lied to by the General Authoity/ies who interevened?

I don't' have any quotes from any GA. All we have is the idea that a GA put a stop to some piece written to critique John's work with Mormon stories. Or so it seems. Yet, John and no one else here has seen anything of the sort. We aren't talking about anything but your guys' (you, John and others) continued contempt for some of the LDS folks.

[Guest]

Sorry, the issue of this thread is criticism of Greg Smith and Daniel Peterson.

Yes, about a hit piece (or shall we say mild critique) that has not been shown to exist. It's all a wacky conspiracy theory, and I for one fully believe it to be the truth without any evidence whatever, don't you?

Not criticism of the Church. Of course, you, Screwtape, will change the subject at your convenience to confuse the issue. As we can plainly see, although people like Smith and Peterson have their supporters within the LDS Church, their attacks on fellow members are not supported by all of the General Authorities, and members of the Church are free to join those Authorities in their disapproval. I have no criticism, but rather high praise, for the Church Authority who quashed the Dehlin hit piece. Obviously he is a man of great character.

It was a bit off topic, and I will happily grant that. Sorry to have confused you.

1. John Dehlin is witness to the existence of the hit piece.

Take a look at page 1, please

Bombshell! John, have you seen the piece?

No.

There was no witness. There is only speculation. Until evidence is produced, I choose to totally believe every wack-job conspiracy theorist. Don't you?

2. No one is saying Peterson wrote it because it was written by Greg Smith.

Sorry. I get my iniquitous dastards mixed up.

3. The General Authority must have quashed the article for a good reason; the GA wouldn't have intervened if the piece had been merely a measured critique. Thus we can conclude that hit piece is not an unreasonably inferred description of it.

It hasn't been established that there was a critique or a hit piece.

4. You have been shown to be a liar, so your conclusions are of little consequence.

Yes, I lie all the time. I once started this big rumor about someone I don't like writing a hit piece on me. It was pretty elaborate.

[_Buffalo]

'bout what? When he claimed DCP denied the existence of an essay? That was a lie, sure.

CFR