Just read the 100-page hit piece on Dehlin . . .

[_Stormy Waters]

Daniel responds to some of the comments in this thread on his blog.

Bill has also added a comment affirming what Daniel has said.

[_Kevin Graham]

Dan is now shifting gears as usual.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that any General Authority had seen or read the paper in question, whether in whole or in part. It may be that one has, but I’ve heard nothing to that effect, and I frankly don’t know how a copy would have reached any of the Brethren.

Notice the sudden shift in position. Where he and Hamblin initially asserted on multiple occasions, with bombastic certitude, that neither of these men had read the piece, now he says he has no reason to believe they had, but maybe they did.

Where he once said Maxwell "leaks like a sieve," now he claims he has no reason to believe anyone could have received a copy of Smith's review. This, even after Hamblin said he had a copy weeks ago and was thinking about posting it. This, after numerous people had informed Dehlin that they had read portions of it. So which is it Dan, does Maxwell "leak like a sieve" of does it not?

And while you're obviously reading these threads and writing up responses on your blog, why don't you go ahead and address the fact that you lied to us about receiving money for your apologetic duties at Maxwell. Haven't quite figured out a way to wriggle yourself out of that one, eh?

MsJack and the narrator are infinitely more credible than you and Bill will ever be.

[_MsJack]

Droopy ~ The author of both the questions and the answers is myself, though I based the questions on what people were saying and asking around the blogs. John Dehlin played no role in composing my blog posts.

@ the topic ~ Dan has responded to what Loyd (the narrator) and I said in this thread on his Patheos blog. He does his usual thing of keeping the people he's responding to anonymous and not linking to the source material.* To sum up his post: he denies what Loyd and I have said here.

For my own part, at this point I believe my source over what Dan and Bill have to say, as I believe the leaked e-mails give us several reasons not to take what Dan says at face value. Other people may believe whom they will.

Bill Hamblin concurs in the comments, lashing out unhelpfully against "anonymous" and "apostate slander." To my knowledge, neither I nor Loyd are anonymous nor "apostates." My source is anonymous, of course, but not an "apostate."

--------

* So when anonymous people criticize Dan, or provide critical information about him, Dan lampoons their anonymity. When non-anonymous people do the same, he refuses to name them.

[_Chap]

* So when anonymous people criticize Dan, or provide critical information about him, Dan lampoons their anonymity. When non-anonymous people do the same, he refuses to name them.

Yup. I'd say that was a pretty familiar pattern with DCP. It's like he has his very own little MADboard there.

[_moksha]

It would also be an astonishing collection of lies and half-truths...

Lies and half-truths are such cacophanous words. Much better just to say "apologetics".

[_Droopy]

Like most irrational apologists, Droopy requires a signed affidavit from any sources used by critics, but when Dan and Bill assert, with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims, then it is to be taken for granted without further question.

As I suspected, its just Dehlin himself blowing his own horn and hoping no one asks for any facts or evidence.

[_Chap]

As I suspected, its just Dehlin himself blowing his own horn and hoping no one asks for any facts or evidence.

I'm trying to see how this follows from what the Narrator says (i.e. that his source is not Dehlin). MsJack does not say her source is Dehlin either (is it, MsJack?).

So presumably Droopy has a Dehlin detector somewhere?

[_Droopy]

Droopy ~ The author of both the questions and the answers is myself, though I based the questions on what people were saying and asking around the blogs. John Dehlin played no role in composing my blog posts.

Well, thanks for that clarification.

@ the topic ~ Dan has responded to what Loyd (the narrator) and I said in this thread on his Patheos blog. He does his usual thing of keeping the people he's responding to anonymous and not linking to the source material.* To sum up his post: he denies what Loyd and I have said here.

Yeah, just like Loyd has done just today:

My source is not Dehlin, who I am cordial with but whose work I don't really care for. Rather it comes from associates of the MI.

For my own part, at this point I believe my source over what Dan and Bill have to say, as I believe the leaked e-mails give us several reasons not to take what Dan says at face value. Other people may believe whom they will.

I don't, and frankly, no one in their right mind who has spent any time in this forum, and understands its, uh, orientation, is going to take anything said here about Danial or anybody else in apologetic circles seriously given the ravenous disregard for intellectual honesty that has deeply impregnated this board since its inception.

Bill Hamblin concurs in the comments, lashing out unhelpfully against "anonymous" and "apostate slander." To my knowledge, neither I nor Loyd are anonymous nor "apostates." My source is anonymous, of course, but not an "apostate."

Yes, most of them are anonymous Internet cowards chucking bowling balls from the overpass. Just like Scratch, just like so many others. Those of us with real names and reputations are at a distinct disadvantage, but, having nothing to hide (and you know who you are who do), we take the risks involved.

[_Kevin Graham]

MsJack, you can't expect droopy to grasp these basic concepts. You're neutral, as you say. You have no dog in this fight. Neither does Loyd. Calling you an apostate is simply idiotic, but it is typical of LDS apologetics in general. They have to label all perceived threats in this way.

What we know for a fact so far is that between the two parties, only the Dan/Hamblin faction have been caught red-handed in lies. The reason it was so important for them to assert no one had read the Smith piece is because it is the only point in which they could claim Dehlin was lying about something. They had to discredit him in some way, and that was the only way to do it. Now that has been reduced to just second guessing. Dan admits that he may very well be wrong about this, which further damages his credibility given his recent antics over that minor point.

I have my own sources at Maxwell but I haven't spoken to them in over a week and I thought this thing would just blow over. But Dan loves the attention and keeps revving up emotions with his "pitiful me" blog entries.

[_Kevin Graham]

As I suspected, its just Dehlin himself blowing his own horn and hoping no one asks for any facts or evidence.

I'm trying to see how this follows from what the Narrator says (i.e. that his source is not Dehlin). MsJack does not say her source is Dehlin either (is it, MsJack?).

So presumably Droopy has a Dehlin detector somewhere?

Virtually everything that comes out of Droopy's mouth is a non sequitur. His brain doesn't know how to produce anything else. For him it is all about loyalty to his Danite pals. Truth has nothing to do with it.