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

[_lostindc]

where is the denial from DCP et al. A denial from Greg or DCP would lay it to rest for the majority of us. DCP took the time to discuss the thread yet not deny the text existed. Liz et al. lets not turn DCP into William Wallace. DCP has chosen to not deny a text existed focusing on Dehlin and was under consideration by the journal DCP is a HUGE part of...

I do not think DCP is a bad person. I believe DCP is likely a very good person. This situation makes me ask questions but I, like many others, are waiting to draw conclusions. DCP et al. credibility is in question.

[_Equality]

Stop libeling John Dehlin. He never said he hates DCP. You continually smear people by ascribing to them motives and feelings they have not expressed. We know you don't "buy" things that are obvious. It's a sign of the thickness of your skull. You sure didn't get any smarter during your time away from the board.

Its not libeling him to read what he says about the man and conclude he doesn't like him. Indeed, read Buffalo's newest post. he does the same thing. he's funny though. he doesn't realize that by saying as much he has spoiled his own point. I don't' know if John would use the words hate in reference to DCP but surely he has some sort of animosity for the guy. At least, that's what he's expressed in this very thread.

No, he didn't. You used the word "hate." He never did. Nor could his statements reasonably be characterized as "hate" for DCP. You owe John an apology.

[Guest]

You don't have a clue what we have here.

Ha! Don't have a clue? Which cabbage patch were you born in, stem?

What we do know about the way that the MI/FARMS has operated for a couple of decades is consistent with John Dehlin's claim. So, yes, I think all of us have more than a clue of what is going on. The suggestion of you or some other faux-rube on this thread that it could have been pulled on account of some curse word in it is so ludicrous that it only merits mention to demonstrate how idiotic you guys are being.

John got credible information that Greg Smith, whose other writings attacking people we do know, wrote a an unfriendly piece about him. I think it is also fair to say that the reason the GAs made the uncharacteristically interventionist move of pulling it is because there were serious problems with it, most likely in its aggressive rhetoric against John Dehlin.

None of this is inconsistent in any way with other things I know about MI/FARMS, Greg Smith, and Daniel Peterson. All of it lines up beautifully. Indeed, the kinds of denials on technical points and disagreements on terms like "hit piece" are also textbook Daniel Peterson stuff. I have argued with him for years and know only too well that he loves to quibble over definitions in order to deny the elephant that is standing in the room. Again, totally predictable and in no way exculpatory. If anything, for those of us who are familiar with Daniel Peterson, it only makes him look more culpable.

Besides, who cares? The amount of anger and resentment shown to LDS folks here, the amount of writings to attack LDS folks here, makes any amount of offense anyone here has for a claimed 100 page hitpiece that no one has read, seen, or smelled hypocritical. It's all sweetly typical of the drama espoused here, no doubt. Surely the divisive folks in your crowd are happy that John has come here using this as a platform to attack DCP. Now, more of you guys can ignore him, which won't happen with hostile folks like Scratch, and treat him with contempt and condescension. Suddenly the man will become more of an example to pout about rather than a real person. You guys...

Stem, let me try to cure what ails you--your thickheaded nonsensical approach to this board and many of the people who post on it. There is no "we" here in the sense that you charge for your convenience and advantage. Droopy is not rejoicing over criticism of DCP. Neither is bcspace. Believe it or not, you have been a semi-regular participant in this board's discussions too. A number of the participants on this board hold membership in the LDS Church and some even attend on a regular basis. A number continue to identify themselves as LDS. So all of this BS about "you guys," as though you were some stranger and we all wore the same uniforms and carried the same little membership card is deceptive BS.

I will admit that I have something against apologetic attack pieces. In this I represent myself and am joined more or less by all those who agree with me. We do not belong to a special organization with little meetings to which only our card-carrying members may come. In our number are nominal members, ex-members, and believing members. We don't like the aggressive, biting, and hyper-critical apologetics that are regularly included in these MI journals and in FAIR. As people who are Mormons, of a Mormon background, and friends of Mormons, we do not find these pieces consistent with the basic moral teachings that were inculcated in us as youngsters.

I have no reservations about criticizing this. It is a known practice, which happens fairly regularly in apologetic venues, and the latest accusation based on information given to John Dehlin is entirely consistent with what we know about it. The defenses and denials that come from Daniel Peterson and others are usually along the lines of "I don't think it is inappropriate to be critical in a biting way" and "nothing says we have to play nice with our enemies," etc. Same BS, different day. The first time I heard this line I was an MA student at BYU who asked Stephen Ricks why Daniel Peterson's and others' reviews of books about Mormonism were so negative and counterproductive.

DCP's response in 1997? "Stupid arguments deserve to be ridiculed." Nothing has changed; nothing will likely change on his end. I doubt it is possible to teach that old dog new tricks about being a jerk to others in thousands of pages of published writing, written correspondence, discussion board participation, etc. My view is that he has a moral blind spot when it comes to this. He and I obviously disagree.

I am, however, hopeful that someday a critical mass will be reached in the amount of endurance that people inside the LDS community have for this kind of abusive behavior. If the goal of the LDS Church is to bring souls unto Christ, including those who have strayed, then I can hardly think of a worse way of doing that. It alienates people from the LDS Church. People like Richard Bushman and others are increasingly sick of it. David Bokovoy decided he had had enough. Now we learn that it is probably the case that some high-level leaders, including at least one General Authority, were sufficiently unhappy with Greg Smith's poison pen letter against John Dehlin, that he decided to intervene and have it pulled.

I celebrate that. I would love to see attacks on fellow LDS people like this end. In spite of the ugliness of such behavior, we know that it commonly occurs in junior high schools across the country. Increasingly, people are stigmatizing and taking action against bullying. Well, I have my fingers crossed that there will be a decreasing level of tolerance for rude apologists who snarkily attack fellow members as "members in name only," "soon to be ex-members," and "wolves in sheep's clothing," and who petulantly pen massive screeds against other LDS folk.

I say away with Ralph Hancock's snide and snarky treatment of Joanna Brooks. I say away with Trevor Holyoak stalking John Dehlin on Facebook so that he can quote him in the FAIRwiki. May the cannibalism stop.

[_Kishkumen]

most posters, like you, hate the guy for some unknown reasons. Sure, John hates him because in John's view DCP has gone out and hurt people. I just don't buy that, at all.

That's complete and utter BS, stem. I think most people here are fairly clear about how and why they disagree with Daniel Peterson on the issue of apologetics. To duck behind the obfuscation of attributing blanket hate to them is cowardly and deceptive. Furthermore, John Dehlin does not hate DCP. Show me any evidence that demonstrates such personal animosity. Disagreement over apologetics does not suffice to demonstrate such personal animus.

[_stemelbow]

I'm not the one accusing everyone who disagrees with me of hate. That's you, stem.

Hate is a cancer in the soul. It will shorten your life and reduce its quality. Let go of the hate and the anger.

Don't fret, Buffalo. My point here is clear. Let go of the hate and anger. You are just repeating me. I'm doing well. Sad for the lot who post here regularly.

[_Buffalo]

I'm not the one accusing everyone who disagrees with me of hate. That's you, stem.

Hate is a cancer in the soul. It will shorten your life and reduce its quality. Let go of the hate and the anger.

Don't fret, Buffalo. My point here is clear. Let go of the hate and anger. You are just repeating me. I'm doing well. Sad for the lot who post here regularly.

You're one of the most hateful posters here, Stem. It's truly sad. You used to have a more open heart, a kinder outlook on those with whom you disagreed. What happened to you?

[_Stormy Waters]

Daniel Peterson comments again on his blog

He seems to confirm the existence of said peice. I don't think it's really being disputed. As for the contents maybe we'll never know.

I apologize if this has already been posted, but I didn't see it.

[_stemelbow]

That's complete and utter BS, stem. I think most people here are fairly clear about how and why they disagree with Daniel Peterson on the issue of apologetics. To duck behind the obfuscation of attributing blanket hate to them is cowardly and deceptive. Furthermore, John Dehlin does not hate DCP. Show me any evidence that demonstrates such personal animosity. Disagreement over apologetics does not suffice to demonstrate such personal animus.

Here's John's post. I'll break it up for you:

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).

No one's taking advantage of him. Daniel suggested in his blog there was no "hit piece" and "smear". John knows that, but instead of accepting that, he tries to twist Daniel's words into saying there was no essay or writing at all. Here he wants to mock Daniel for something he did not say.

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.

That's pretty classic ad hom stuff. Nothing to address Daniel's words at all. Indeed, his attack is coming because he is claiming someone other than Daniel wrote a piece that attacked John's work. Why does Daniel deserve his venom? it seems like its pretty clear animosity to me.

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.

He has nothing but contempt for their work. So what? In one case, alleged a piece was stopped by a GA. We don't know the reason why the GA stopped anything. We can only surmise. We can throw out guesses. But everyone associated with "the foundation" it seems is being attacked by John. Seems like personal hostility to me.

So I feel sorry for them that in some sense, they have been (and ultimately will be) left out to dry. As dupes.

Jeesh. He uses one example of one alleged piece and here they are all dupes? Name calling. Come on.

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: 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."

Someone? Oh jeesh. Plenty who struggle remain.

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

Not to mention all the LDS apologetics that is not tragic, damaging, train-wreck-of-an embarrassment to everyone involved. Look, you get after me for saying "you guys' when I refer to those who post here, knowing full well I don't mean BCSpace and Droopy, and yet this guy, and most of the rest of the posters here, get free passes from you. Kind sad, ol' Kishkumen.

My suggestion to this board: At some point, it's time to ignore the troll(s)....and move on.

The troll=DCP? And the plural form is of all those who he doesn't like?

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 Santa and 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.

As he gives them airtime for something no one can verify. Cute.

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

This is clearly disingenuous stuff, right? I see nothing but hostility. he knows they aren't hurting people. They are trying their best to answer tough questions and address challenging issues. it's not their fault if their efforts to work for some people. My goodness...he's blaming Daniel and many others for things he has no business blaming them for. What utter hostility! I'm sure you're blind to it, though.

[_stemelbow]

You're one of the most hateful posters here, Stem. It's truly sad. You used to have a more open heart, a kinder outlook on those with whom you disagreed. What happened to you?

Buffalo, that you are blind to the hate here and trying to put it on another, is a sad situation you've found yourself in. I wish more for you.

[_stemelbow]

You don't have a clue what we have here.

Ha! Don't have a clue? Which cabbage patch were you born in, stem?

What we do know about the way that the MI/FARMS has operated for a couple of decades is consistent with John Dehlin's claim. So, yes, I think all of us have more than a clue of what is going on. The suggestion of you or some other faux-rube on this thread that it could have been pulled on account of some curse word in it is so ludicrous that it only merits mention to demonstrate how idiotic you guys are being.

John got credible information that Greg Smith, whose other writings attacking people we do know, wrote a an unfriendly piece about him. I think it is also fair to say that the reason the GAs made the uncharacteristically interventionist move of pulling it is because there were serious problems with it, most likely in its aggressive rhetoric against John Dehlin.

None of this is inconsistent in any way with other things I know about MI/FARMS, Greg Smith, and Daniel Peterson. All of it lines up beautifully. Indeed, the kinds of denials on technical points and disagreements on terms like "hit piece" are also textbook Daniel Peterson stuff. I have argued with him for years and know only too well that he loves to quibble over definitions in order to deny the elephant that is standing in the room. Again, totally predictable and in no way exculpatory. If anything, for those of us who are familiar with Daniel Peterson, it only makes him look more culpable.

Stem, let me try to cure what ails you--your thickheaded nonsensical approach to this board and many of the people who post on it. There is no "we" here in the sense that you charge for your convenience and advantage. Droopy is not rejoicing over criticism of DCP. Neither is bcspace. Believe it or not, you have been a semi-regular participant in this board's discussions too. A number of the participants on this board hold membership in the LDS Church and some even attend on a regular basis. A number continue to identify themselves as LDS. So all of this BS about "you guys," as though you were some stranger and we all wore the same uniforms and carried the same little membership card is deceptive BS.

I will admit that I have something against apologetic attack pieces. In this I represent myself and am joined more or less by all those who agree with me. We do not belong to a special organization with little meetings to which only our card-carrying members may come. In our number are nominal members, ex-members, and believing members. We don't like the aggressive, biting, and hyper-critical apologetics that are regularly included in these MI journals and in FAIR. As people who are Mormons, of a Mormon background, and friends of Mormons, we do not find these pieces consistent with the basic moral teachings that were inculcated in us as youngsters.

I have no reservations about criticizing this. It is a known practice, which happens fairly regularly in apologetic venues, and the latest accusation based on information given to John Dehlin is entirely consistent with what we know about it. The defenses and denials that come from Daniel Peterson and others are usually along the lines of "I don't think it is inappropriate to be critical in a biting way" and "nothing says we have to play nice with our enemies," etc. Same BS, different day. The first time I heard this line I was an MA student at BYU who asked Stephen Ricks why Daniel Peterson's and others' reviews of books about Mormonism were so negative and counterproductive.

DCP's response in 1997? "Stupid arguments deserve to be ridiculed." Nothing has changed; nothing will likely change on his end. I doubt it is possible to teach that old dog new tricks about being a jerk to others in thousands of pages of published writing, written correspondence, discussion board participation, etc. My view is that he has a moral blind spot when it comes to this. He and I obviously disagree.

I am, however, hopeful that someday a critical mass will be reached in the amount of endurance that people inside the LDS community have for this kind of abusive behavior. If the goal of the LDS Church is to bring souls unto Christ, including those who have strayed, then I can hardly think of a worse way of doing that. It alienates people from the LDS Church. People like Richard Bushman and others are increasingly sick of it. David Bokovoy decided he had had enough. Now we learn that it is probably the case that some high-level leaders, including at least one General Authority, were sufficiently unhappy with Greg Smith's poison pen letter against John Dehlin, that he decided to intervene and have it pulled.

I celebrate that. I would love to see attacks on fellow LDS people like this end. In spite of the ugliness of such behavior, we know that it commonly occurs in junior high schools across the country. Increasingly, people are stigmatizing and taking action against bullying. Well, I have my fingers crossed that there will be a decreasing level of tolerance for rude apologists who snarkily attack fellow members as "members in name only," "soon to be ex-members," and "wolves in sheep's clothing," and who petulantly pen massive screeds against other LDS folk.

I say away with Ralph Hancock's snide and snarky treatment of Joanna Brooks. I say away with Trevor Holyoak stalking John Dehlin on Facebook so that he can quote him in the FAIRwiki. May the cannibalism stop.

Your post would come off as far more meaningful if it wasn't true that the behavior you say you oppose is common here and in part you even support. I said it long ago, it seems for the most part, the arguments and complaints on this board filter down to nothing more than hypocrisy. Its a sad place to work from when you complain about the poor behavior of others from a place that holds at its highest virtue poor behavior. I bleieve it was Pahoran who once said something a long the lines of the folks (and when I say that you know that I mean the majority of posters here) who post here will strain at the tiniest of LDS indiscretions but blindly swallow the elephant sized indiscretions by those here as if they are good. His wording was much better as you can imagine, but it rings true.