Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[_stemelbow]

I would hope that apologies would be forthcoming from stem

I'm sorry. I don't know what you have in mind about what wrong doing I did, but I'm quick to apologize generally (ask my wife).

"...on the other thread were engaging in character assassination in an attempt to et the focus off the reprehensible actions of Smith, Midgley, Peterson, and company."

What character assassination are you attempting to foist upon me?

[_Kishkumen]

Doctor Scratch:

I am trying to be practical here and seek the best possible result for all parties. I see no sense in me wasting my energies striking people I don't hate, so I am not going to do that. I am speaking for myself here and not implying anything about the actions of others. From my years at BYU two decades ago, my primary "issue" has not been the existence of apologetics, but what I thought was its counterproductive use against fellow LDS or outsiders who were really not intentionally antagonistic (Brooke in his book Refiner's Fire).

I have no illusions about my power to "reform" anyone or "save" anything. I can no more change apologetics or persuade the apologists than I can make myself a billionaire overnight. So, I don't pretend to any such goal. Rather, I am observing that it would be better, in my opinion, for the LDS Church and for those members who encounter questions and problems, to have a pastoral organization they could seek out for assistance that would not be the hammer treating every problem like a nail. All those who see the wisdom in that can echo my appeal, make it their own, and advocate it in their own way.

I think one of the best merits of my position is that it does not demonize the apologists. It says, "hey, you guys do this stuff, you have good intentions, you do good work, and you have your place." I say this because I think that Mormons deserve to defend themselves and their beliefs just as much as Jews, Catholics, or any other religious group does. Why should I say, "I will not be satisfied until every one of these "old school apologists" is drummed out of the Church in shame"? I don't feel that way. It is not what I want. So, I'm not going there.

I went to BYU. Some of these guys, or men very much like them (Hugh Nibley), were my teachers. Some of the stuff they have done is really cool, and I applaud them for it. If someone whose job it is to do such things (apostle, president) could see the wisdom, or be inspired by the Spirit, to direct them more exclusively to the task that their approach is best suited for (fighting external critics of Mormonism), and see to the pastoral care of hurting members through other means, I would be overjoyed. I could sit back and be very, very happy about what happened. I would be at peace about this whole thing.

[_Yoda]

All you need to do is look at how Hamblin and Peterson and Schryver responded. You've chosen the dark side of the force. Forever will it dominate your destiny.

As a fellow "Star Wars" fan, I knew there was a reason I liked you! LOL

Thanks for bringing some levity to this thread.

First of all, John, I want you to know that I applaud the work that you have done, and continue to do. During a very serious trial of my faith, you were instrumental in helping me find peace in my NOMness.

I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.

However, when he was advised not to publish the article, he complied.

That really appears to be the end of this story. I really don't understand why it is being blown up into some huge federal case.

Since you, John, have not read the article, you are only guessing as to what was actually written.

And, the bottom line is, this article, which it appears, has never been published, and no one has read, will not be published.

What more do you hope to accomplish?

[_LDSToronto]

All you need to do is look at how Hamblin and

I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.

Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.

H.

[_Buffalo]

Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.

H.

+1

It's essentially a page out of the Scientology playbook.

[_stemelbow]

Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.

H.

Much like posts here. Anyone who has read a post here, by a critic, what they call critique or argument is really just an ad hominem attack.

[_LDSToronto]

Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.

H.

Much like posts here. Anyone who has read a post here, by a critic, what they call critique or argument is really just an ad hominem attack.

Mr. Elbow,

What is the difference between an internet message board and the FARMS Review?

H.

[_stemelbow]

Mr. Elbow,

What is the difference between an internet message board and the FARMS Review?

H.

I don't see how it matters. The complaint is, "they are doing something I don't like".

When someone says, "well you, or those you are associated with, are doing the same thing"

I don't see how saying, "well, they do it but they have more credibility and a larger readership then we" is an adequate defense. Or, "well they are assuming to be more professional then we".

Either way, it doesn't really work. Either stop your endless personal attacks on LDS folks, and offer your complaints about them offering personal attacks, or accept it goes both ways. That's how I see it.

I know you guys have exempted yourselves for some odd reason.

[_Yoda]

I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.

Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.

H.

I understand. However, my point still stands. No one has read the article. I cannot comment on it because I have not read it. John has not read the article either.

And, at this point, no one will read the article.

It seems that, in any case, the article will not be published. If it was, indeed, a hit piece, as apparently some of John's friends who did manage to read the article claim, then, MI did ultimately do right by John, and did not publish it.

What more is there really to say about this? John, it seems, has been vindicated, if, he was, indeed a victim of any wrongdoing in the first place.

[_Buffalo]

Liz, Hamblin suggested that it will now be published by FAIR instead of the MI.