Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _stemelbow »

mormonstories wrote:In full disclosure, here's another email I sent to Daniel Peterson and my supportive friends that was part of the dialogue:

[Names withheld]

I'm including below just a few of the comments about LDS apologetics from our recent survey of disaffected Mormons to aid you in your decision-making about these issues. I hope you find them useful. If you want more examples, I'm happy to provide. Thanks again for reconsidering your approach. -- John

From respondent 2108: “The biggest factor was the professional apologists. I watched FARMS and FAIR apologists treat people horribly. For example, Professor Daniel C. Peterson used to lurk on the Recovery from Mormonism site so that he could snatch up quotes from the people posting there, in order to humiliate them. This, coupled with the way apologists tend to treat critics (i.e., with ad hominem attack), was the lynchpin.// I would encourage him/them to do something about the apologists. I think they are the worst aspect of the current Church.”

From respondent 1746: “On honesty, stop leaving it to the apologetics. They are terrible and are doing more damage than good to people’s testimonies with their poor answers. For example....Book of Abraham.”

From respondent 1865: “Please stop the ridiculous apologetics. Their circular reasoning and logical fallacies do more harm than good.”

From respondent 2122: “Please stop with the apologetic as well. Fair and the Maxwell Institute contributed to my leaving the church.”

From respondent 2844: “As I studied Church history and uncovered many controversial historical evidence, I would frequent LDS apologetic sites for answers (e.g. FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute), Shields, FAIR). I soon discovered those sites rarely dealt with the controversial evidences but rather often skirted or obfuscated the issue and frequently resorted to personal attacks on the individuals who were publishing historical information.”


So were these emails to Daniel Peterson or to the GA, with Daniel receiving as carbon copy? Daniel has claimed you had sought far more than just contacting him. It seems instead of first contacting him, you contacted a GA to put a stop it to.

This isn't full disclosure. I think I understand more where his comments in that email come from, if this is the case.

This whole affair is quite shameful.

Here is DCP's attempt to offer some disclosure, which it appears sheds some pretty good light on John's claim of full disclosure. I know posters here won't see this dishonest claim of his, because his other dishonest claim was twisted to suggest DCP used a word he did not use.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... 1209121275

Sadly, no one has a full story save for a few and we're all eating it up and sharing our biased views. Go here, and everyone think MI and DCP are bad. Go there, and everyone is questioning John's morals and honesty. Gotta say, they have some good points over there.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Kishkumen »

stemelbow wrote:Go there, and everyone is questioning John's morals and honesty. Gotta say, they have some good points over there.


LOL! Yes, you do "gotta say." Hilarious.

I can see that mistakes have been made all around. I find the entire incident unfortunate, and I stand by my final judgment, which is that, although most folks involved are basically well-intentioned and decent people, there is a fundamental structural problem in the approach to dealing with external criticism and doubting members.

One organization ought not to do both duties.

Things like this result from that deficient state of affairs.

If that were changed, there would be fewer problems of this kind.

You don't release your Doberman Pinscher on your kid for sassing at you.

This is what happens every day that apologists like Lou Midgley, Dan Peterson, and Bill Hamblin deal with members in an oppositional way and publish essays about them.

I am not saying that one should not be allowed to have Dobermans. I am saying that they should not be released to attack family members.

By the way, I had Dobermans as a kid. I love them. They are great dogs, and they tend to keep external enemies away.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Buffalo »

stemelbow wrote:
This whole affair is quite shameful.


Indeed. And you have chosen the side of those who lust for vicious personal attack as sport.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _stemelbow »

Kishkumen wrote:LOL! Yes, you do "gotta say." Hilarious.

I can see that mistakes have been made all around. I find the entire incident unfortunate, and I stand by my final judgment, which is that, although most folks involved are basically well-intentioned and decent people, there is a fundamental structural problem in the approach to dealing with external criticism and doubting members.

One organization ought not to do both duties.

Things like this result from that deficient state of affairs.

If that were changed, there would be fewer problems of this kind.

You don't release your Doberman Pinscher on your kid for sassing at you.

This is what happens every day that apologists like Lou Midgley, Dan Peterson, and Bill Hamblin deal with members in an oppositional way and publish essays about them.

I am not saying that one should not be allowed to have Dobermans. I am saying that they should not be released to attack family members.


I pretty much agree with you.

They will continue to say that a group like John's is not as helpful as he and others like to think. That in a way they are not helping. That may be. On the flip, the MI may not be as helpful as they like to think. In a way, they are not helping. But, its clear, John has clearly dug in his heels and taken a stand against them. They are clearly attempting the same. Its too bad each are so angry at each other. Working together instead of attacking might be more productive.

Alright, Kishkumen, bring on the rancor and personal attacks. I'm ready again.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _stemelbow »

Buffalo wrote:Indeed. And you have chosen the side of those who lust for vicious personal attack as sport.


You're side? No...I'm not on your side. I'm not on any side. I question here, and demonizing commences to the point of confusing your side about what my position really is.

hint: its far more moderate then you imagine.

In a way, I see how it easy it is for people to create strawmen without realizing it. Just get caught up, like Buffalo does, emotionally opposed to others.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Kishkumen »

stemelbow wrote:all right, Kishkumen, bring on the rancor and personal attacks. I'm ready again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrCYX5lxVQo
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: -

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Buffalo »

stemelbow wrote:
Buffalo wrote:Indeed. And you have chosen the side of those who lust for vicious personal attack as sport.


You're side? No...I'm not on your side. I'm not on any side. I question here, and demonizing commences to the point of confusing your side about what my position really is.

hint: its far more moderate then you imagine.

In a way, I see how it easy it is for people to create strawmen without realizing it. Just get caught up, like Buffalo does, emotionally opposed to others.


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.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _Kishkumen »

stemelbow wrote:I pretty much agree with you.

They will continue to say that a group like John's is not as helpful as he and others like to think. That in a way they are not helping. That may be. On the flip, the MI may not be as helpful as they like to think. In a way, they are not helping. But, its clear, John has clearly dug in his heels and taken a stand against them. They are clearly attempting the same. Its too bad each are so angry at each other. Working together instead of attacking might be more productive.


I think my solution is a fair and intriguing suggestion. Both sides are fighting for their continuing existence. They view each other as enemies and see harm in the other's actions. I think having two organizations with different aims addressing the problems they are best equipped to handle would be optimal. Neither aim is invalid. I have no desire to see the excommunication of John Dehlin or the shaming and firing of some professor at BYU who likes to engage in apologetics. I think they are all fine.

And, I should add that I am not saying that Dehlin should be institutionalized as part of the Church, or that what is important here is this particular set of formal or informal organizations. What makes sense for the Church and the well being of its members is the existence of two separate organizations that bring to their different charges an appropriate set of tools exercised with care and professionalism.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

Post by _stemelbow »

Buffalo wrote: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.


You're blind as a bat, which has already been shown when you claimed Daniel used the word "essay", if you think their responses represent the loan attacks in all of this. Both sides, your side and their side, have attacked, personally so. I have chosen the middle road. You've chosen your side. Have fun with that, complaining about them doing that which you and your side does.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Post Reply