Banned at MDDB for asking Juliann a Question About FAIR

[_consiglieri]

Earlier this week, Bill Reel posted a bullet point synopsis of Patrick Mason's FAIR Mormon address at MDDB and asked, among other things, whether this represented a new trend in apologetics at FAIR Mormon.

This resulted in a multi-page ad hominem dog pile on Bill accusing him of criminal acts for linking to a video of Mason's presentation. Bill apologized and tried to get back to the main point, but the cacophony about what a bad person he is simply would not cease.

Juliann did the strophes; and Scott Lloyd and Calm (of all people) took up the antistrophes.

It was a remarkable display, really, and it was clear that Bill Reel was what's for dinner. But the frenzy also seemed to have been a distraction from the question Bill kept calmly trying to bring the discussion back to, which was whether FAIR Mormon is trending toward a softer, gentler brand of apologetics. I.e., Grant Hardy and Patrick Mason instead of Peterson and Hamblin. But nobody would answer that question.

It seemed the mere asking of the question evoked heated passions.

So yesterday, I see somebody has started a thread about Grant Hardy's FAIR presentation, and I read on page 1 how Juliann seemed to be saying that now that FAIR had Hardy and Mason, et al, present at their conference, FAIR could now authoritatively point to them as representing FAIR. (These are not her exact words, but this is the gist I got from what she said.)

So I asked Juliann if this is indeed what she meant; if FAIR Mormon was trending toward this newer brand of apologetics; and pointed out that Bill Reel had asked the same question on another thread but that I didn't think it had ever been answered.

(I have to emphasize here how polite and non-confrontational this simple question was.)

I have to emphasize it so you will understand how surprised I was to get to work this morning and find out I am banned.

I am thinking this suggests FAIR Mormon may be a tad sensitive on this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Dr. Shades]

I don't suppose I can bother you to provide links to the two threads in question, can I?

[_DBMORMON]

I don't suppose I can bother you to provide links to the two threads in question, can I?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67956-patrick-mason-at-fairmormon/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67967-grant-hardy-talk-quotes-and-my-analysis/

[Guest]

I don't suppose I can bother you to provide links to the two threads in question, can I?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/679 ... is/?page=2
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/679 ... airmormon/


I drove consig's question a bit deeper; will MDDB soften as well. That did not end so well either. I wonder if Bill finds himself banned this morning.

eta: damn that dbmormon dude is fast.

[_Craig Paxton]

Earlier this week, Bill Reel posted a bullet point synopsis of Patrick Mason's FAIR Mormon address at MDDB and asked, among other things, whether this represented a new trend in apologetics at FAIR Mormon.

This resulted in a multi-page ad hominem dog pile on Bill accusing him of criminal acts for linking to a video of Mason's presentation. Bill apologized and tried to get back to the main point, but the cacophony about what a bad person he is simply would not cease.

Juliann did the strophes; and Scott Lloyd and Calm (of all people) took up the antistrophes.

It was a remarkable display, really, and it was clear that Bill Reel was what's for dinner. But the frenzy also seemed to have been a distraction from the question Bill kept calmly trying to bring the discussion back to, which was whether FAIR Mormon is trending toward a softer, gentler brand of apologetics. I.e., Grant Hardy and Patrick Mason instead of Peterson and Hamblin. But nobody would answer that question.

It seemed the mere asking of the question evoked heated passions.

So yesterday, I see somebody has started a thread about Grant Hardy's FAIR presentation, and I read on page 1 how Juliann seemed to be saying that now that FAIR had Hardy and Mason, et al, present at their conference, FAIR could now authoritatively point to them as representing FAIR. (These are not her exact words, but this is the gist I got from what she said.)

So I asked Juliann if this is indeed what she meant; if FAIR Mormon was trending toward this newer brand of apologetics; and pointed out that Bill Reel had asked the same question on another thread but that I didn't think it had ever been answered.

(I have to emphasize here how polite and non-confrontational this simple question was.)

I have to emphasize it so you will understand how surprised I was to get to work this morning and find out I am banned.

I am thinking this suggests FAIR Mormon may be a tad sensitive on this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I too was shocked and dumbfounded in how the elite at MD&D are able to spew forth their venom towards Bill Real with impunity. I read through the entire thread and it literally took nearly 10 pages of ad hominin attacks to finally get to the jest of Bill's original post. There is clearly a double standard at MD&D in how they treat posters...I'm guessing that their experiment with Soviet Style Free Speech is over, the North Korean's have taken over...Long Live Kim Jong Un

[Guest]

I don't suppose I can bother you to provide links to the two threads in question, can I?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67956-patrick-mason-at-fairmormon/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67967-grant-hardy-talk-quotes-and-my-analysis/

Bill,

Like it or not...I think "We" are your people

by the way...I really enjoy your podcast despite (being a raving, cold hearted apostate) <--exaggeration, umm maybe not

[_DBMORMON]

I don't suppose I can bother you to provide links to the two threads in question, can I?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/679 ... is/?page=2
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/679 ... airmormon/


I drove consig's question a bit deeper; will MDDB soften as well. That did not end so well either. I wonder if Bill finds himself banned this morning.

eta: damn that dbmormon dude is fast.

not yet

[_Fence Sitter]

I thought that the MAD board was created so that the FAIR people and the board were not linked, but given that the two threads Consiglieri mentions dealt directly with FAIR and that those asking questions deemed critical, were banned, it's hard not to concluded who is still running the show at MAD.

MAD may be trying a kinder gentler approach but obviously any perceived criticism of FAIR is not part of that approach.

Ironic isn't it? Given that the main topic of both those threads was to ask if FAIR was embracing a more inclusive attitude toward dissent. Well I guess we got our answer.

[_RockSlider]

not yet

you are likely good to go. They just took Mason's talk to heart and got two of the rottenest apples out of the cart.

Well, ok being a FairMormon defector, perhaps they did not have a squeegee on hand?

[_consiglieri]

I thought that the MAD board was created so that the FAIR people and the board were not linked, but given that the two threads Consiglieri mentions dealt directly with FAIR and that those asking questions deemed critical, were banned, it's hard not to concluded who is still running the show at MAD.

MAD may be trying a kinder gentler approach but obviously any perceived criticism of FAIR is not part of that approach.

Ironic isn't it? Given that the main topic of both those threads was to ask if FAIR was embracing a more inclusive attitude toward dissent. Well I guess we got our answer.

Good points!

I will add that I believe FAIR has staked out for itself a position of being in lock-step with LDS Church leadership.

But Patrick Mason is definitely out in front of the leadership in some of his positions.

As is Grant Hardy on the possibility of the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction.

I get the feeling (and a few intel reports) that FAIR is struggling to find its footing as to which way it wants to proceed.

The orthodox apologetics of the past or the new apologetics represented by Mason, Hardy, Givens, etc.

I am sensing a heated conflict among the folks at FAIR over this issue.

Which is why the simple asking of what is going on raises such angry responses.