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

[_Chap]

It is just a matter of time till someone tickles the ear of the powers that be and they actively go after John Dehlin.

If he does not wish to be a part of the Church, then he is under no compulsion to remain within its precincts.

He is free to choose.

It appears, however, that he wishes to be part of it. And it appears that the CoJCoLDS prefers to let him remain a part of it. I hope Droopy is not going to do any ark-steadying here by telling his church what people it should allow to remain as members? I don't think he holds any stewardship that gives him the right to do that.

[_Juggler Vain]

I am glad John showed up to set the record straight. It seems as though Greg Smith is really out to earn his stripes: gushing in risible hyperbole over Schryver's paper, attacking Rodney Meldrum, and now taking aim at John Dehlin. Here are the notches on the belt of an aspiring top-tier Mopologist. Shameless ambition, if you ask me.

Greg Smith has been at this "attack the critics" thing for a while, apparently on many different topical fronts. In early 2008, a fairly prominent religious art blogger, Menachem Wecker published an article about Images of the Restoration. His article noted that IOTR criticizes the Church for being dishonest about the Book of Mormon translation process, and his attempt to get a direct response from the Church resulted in a direct "no comment" from the Church spokesperson and a referral to FAIR for more information.

Almost immediately after publication of Menachem's article, Greg posted a FAIRwiki article that, according to the FAIR Blog, was a response to Wecker's reporting. Menachem mentioned the FAIRwiki article in a blog post, and my comments sparked a bizarre debate with Greg, in which Greg (1) openly acknowledged and attempted to defend his use of ad hominem attacks and (2) denied that the content of his FAIRwiki entry is a reflection of the opinions or views of FAIR (see his comment HERE).

Given Greg's belief in the validity of ad hominem attacks, and his willingness to take personal responsibility for those attacks without implicating the organization/publication he is writing for, he may be the perfect hired gun for a smear piece on Dehlin.

-JV

[_mormonstories]

John,
Do you think that the General Authorities are aware of what gets said on the message boards?

I don't think so. I think they have bigger fish to fry. That's just how I feel. Seems like they barely know that there's a strengthening the membership committee, or that we used to swear death oaths. ;)

(That was a BBC reference....) :)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I am glad John showed up to set the record straight. It seems as though Greg Smith is really out to earn his stripes: gushing in risible hyperbole over Schryver's paper, attacking Rodney Meldrum, and now taking aim at John Dehlin. Here are the notches on the belt of an aspiring top-tier Mopologist. Shameless ambition, if you ask me.

Greg Smith has been at this "attack the critics" thing for a while, apparently on many different topical fronts. In early 2008, a fairly prominent religious art blogger, Menachem Wecker published an article about Images of the Restoration. His article noted that IOTR criticizes the Church for being dishonest about the Book of Mormon translation process, and his attempt to get a direct response from the Church resulted in a direct "no comment" from the Church spokesperson and a referral to FAIR for more information.

That's incredible. Church PR--which, as we've come to learn in the wake of the Randy Bott fiasco, is one of the main channels for establishing "Official Doctrine"--and they referred you to FAIR??? This suggests rather clearly that FAIR--at least in some cases--has even more authority than the Church Newsroom. This is astonishing.

Almost immediately after publication of Menachem's article, Greg posted a FAIRwiki article that, according to the FAIR Blog, was a response to Wecker's reporting. Menachem mentioned the FAIRwiki article in a blog post, and my comments sparked a bizarre debate with Greg, in which Greg (1) openly acknowledged and attempted to defend his use of ad hominem attacks and (2) denied that the content of his FAIRwiki entry is a reflection of the opinions or views of FAIR (see his comment HERE).

Given Greg's belief in the validity of ad hominem attacks, and his willingness to take personal responsibility for those attacks without implicating the organization/publication he is writing for, he may be the perfect hired gun for a smear piece on Dehlin.

-JV

Thank you very much for posting this, JV. What a fascinating piece of Mopologetic history. Greg Smith was really very hostile in his comments--something that he tends to refrain from doing on the MDD messageboard. Very revealing. I guess he is following in Midgley's footsteps, eh? Louis "Woody" Midgley seemed to realize that he could never hack it in open, online debate, so he opted instead to do this sort of thing: to carefully choose his battles in the "Comments" sections of blogs, or else to have goons like Stan Barker post his invectives for him.

[_RayAgostini]

I have a couple questions here:

1. Did the GA/s who stepped in to help John read the "hit piece"?

2. Who are these GAs? I think that's most important to know, considering the case made for "factions".

Personally, I think very highly of John, and Mormon Stories, but isn't this an irony, that some seem to essentially be supporting the very thing they have decried for years - censorship? Must we assume a priori, that this "hit piece" will be totally ad hominem and useless, simply because it comes from "apologists"?

I'd like to read it and judge for myself, even if privately, and then make suitable criticisms if necessary. Those criticisms might even go in favour of John. If it's nothing but a smear, and character assassination, or poor argumentation, then wouldn't that logically make FARMS/FAIR look even worse in the eyes of many who already don't have a very high opinion of them?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have a couple questions here:

1. Did the GA/s who stepped in to help John read the "hit piece"?

2. Who are these GAs? I think that's most important to know, considering the case made for "factions".

Personally, I think very highly of John, and Mormon Stories, but isn't this an irony, that some seem to essentially be supporting the very thing they have decried for years - censorship? Must we assume a priori, that this "hit piece" will be totally ad hominem and useless, simply because it comes from "apologists"?

I'd like to read it and judge for myself, even if privately, and then make suitable criticisms if necessary. Those criticisms might even go in favour of John. If it's nothing but a smear, and character assassination, or poor argumentation, then wouldn't that logically make FARMS/FAIR look even worse in the eyes of many who already don't have a very high opinion of them?

Those are great questions, Ray, and I agree: I'd be interested to read the original article, too.

Incidentally, I just moments ago received a fascinating PM in my Inbox. It said that, in fact, we *may* very well eventually see this article, albeit in a heavily bowdlerized form. I was even told the original title: "Dubious "Mormon" Stories That John Dehlin Tells to Me." I guess that's a play on the lyrics from "Book of Mormon Stories"? Apparently, the article was set up to portray John as a conniving "wolf in sheep's clothing" whose sold purpose is to lead the Saints out of the Church.

Also: I've been assured that the GA who intervened here was definitely *not* Elder Packer, since Packer is very close friends with Greg Smith's father-in-law.

[_Eric]

Louis "Woody" Midgley

[_Kishkumen]

I am. Sort of. But not too much.

Well, not too much, I hope. I am thinking along the lines of more open criticism from the apologists.

[_Juggler Vain]

That's incredible. Church PR--which, as we've come to learn in the wake of the Randy Bott fiasco, is one of the main channels for establishing "Official Doctrine"--and they referred you to FAIR??? This suggests rather clearly that FAIR--at least in some cases--has even more authority than the Church Newsroom. This is astonishing.

That was very surprising to me too. Menachem Wecker thought he could get the Church's side of the story from the Church, but the Church introduced him to FAIR instead. He had to settle for an interview with David Keller, and David refused to speak for anybody but himself (not the Church, and not FAIR) in the interview. What was the point of the Church referral, then? Beats me.

Also, one point of clarification in my original post, above. I just looked at Greg's Iconia comments again, and I see that he didn't acknowledge that he was engaging in ad hominem attacks, at least not in any "fallacious sense." But he did seem to be saying, based on the historian's quote he provided and his agreement with it, that ad hominem attacks can be a perfectly legitimate tactic, outside of discussions relying purely on formal logic or "replicable experiments" in the scientific process.

-JV

[_RayAgostini]

Apparently, the article was set up to portray John as a conniving "wolf in sheep's clothing" whose sold purpose is to lead the Saints out of the Church.

Nothing original about that, for me. One can see that coming like a bullet train. But I'd like to see the arguments in detail.