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

[_Kishkumen]

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

Then he and DCP are a match made in heaven, since DCP argued at length in favor of the ad hominem argument in the FROB. I am pretty sure that to this day he is a firm believer in the usefulness of such arguments.

[_Yong Xi]

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.

The assumption seems to be that a member of the FP or Q12 intervened. Do we know this for a fact or could John's "savior" have been a lesser GA? Maybe John could address this.

[_Kishkumen]

The assumption seems to be that a member of the FP or Q12 intervened. Do we know this for a fact or could John's "savior" have been a lesser GA? Maybe John could address this.

It is doubtful that he will address it.

[_mormonstories]

I have a couple questions here:

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

I doubt it. I don't know.

I'd like to read it and judge for myself, even if privately, and then make suitable criticisms if necessary.

Me too.

[_Kishkumen]

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?

I'd love to read it too. Here's the thing. Anyone who buys the "aw shucks we're just a bunch of guys sayin' stuff because we want to" schtick of these apologists is sorely mistaken. If the Church will refer people to FAIR for comment, and will intervene in the publication of apologetic articles, then what we have in LDS apologetics are agents, more or less directly, of the LDS Church who are taken as having enough 'wink-wink' authority to paint a large target on the back of anyone that they go after. These are the politics of exclusion in a society that does not have anything like the free speech ideal that many of us hold dear. Since John does not get equal time and space for a rebuttal, why should we lament when the attack has been silenced? If it saves John from getting excommunicated, then I am happy it never saw the light of day. Why should we rejoice in John being a martyr for the cause of free speech in an ecclesiastical society that has none to begin with?

[_RayAgostini]

These are the politics of exclusion in a society that does not have anything like the free speech ideal that many of us hold dear. Since John does not get equal time and space for a rebuttal, why should we lament when the attack has been silenced? If it saves John from getting excommunicated, then I am happy it never saw the light of day. Why should we rejoice in John being a martyr for the cause of free speech in an ecclesiastical society that has none to begin with?

I see no reason why John, and others, will not be able to reply, even on the FAIR blog. I know it's not exactly the most friendly place for people like John (nor MDDB), but MDB isn't exactly the most friendly place for apologists, either. They have all the free speech they want here, but they're always vastly out-numbered, and consequently most of them have given up. So it works both ways. To say, or think, that John will be denied an opportunity to reply, doesn't wash with me. What are they going to do? Say "sorry but you're not allowed to reply here?" So how will his free speech be denied?

I think it would be a very serious mistake to excommunicate John, and if he must be excommunicated because of a FAIR/FARMS "hit piece", it's only going to open a greater flood of members leaving, in my opinion. Maybe that's what they want, to sort the "wheat from the tares"? If so, then so be it. It'll probably a good thing both ways, and instead of waiting for the Lord and his angels to do the sorting of the wheat and tares, the Church authorities can do it for him, with a "little" help from FAIR.

In my opinion John is one of the fairest and most balanced observers commenting on Mormonism today, and has given both apologists and critics a fair go on Mormon Stories. His own "journey" has been inspiring to many who've struggled with the controversies, and while some may have left the Church because of that (one reason he earlier stopped doing MS), I believe many others have actually had their faith boosted.

So I say bring on the "hit piece" and let's scrutinise it. I'm sure it won't go unnoticed here on Mormon Discussions!

[_Equality]

In my opinion John is one of the fairest and most balanced observers commenting on Mormonism today, and has given both apologists and critics a fair go on Mormon Stories. His own "journey" has been inspiring to many who've struggled with the controversies

I agree with this, and I think few rational, informed people would disagree.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

The assumption seems to be that a member of the FP or Q12 intervened. Do we know this for a fact or could John's "savior" have been a lesser GA? Maybe John could address this.

Kishkumen is right that Dehlin probably won't address it, but I was told by more than one person that the "savior" was an Apostle.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray,

I think you're misunderstanding what Kishkumen was saying. These latest revelations provide evidence for what many of us have suspected: that the MI apologists are paid "hitmen" for the Church. They basically have been given carte blanche by the Brethren to destroy people's reputations. Sure: they toss in all the usual baloney about their comments not being "official" and what have you, but that's all clearly bogus. The Brethren have sanctioned these 30+ years of smear campaigns. And the apologists have lapped up hte opportunities, because they get to have it both ways. The Church enjoys plausible deniability ("It's only the one guy's opinion!") and the "struggling members" get to think that the Church is formally endorsing all this tarring of critics.

So, in a scenario like this, there can never be "free speech" within the context of the community. Of course, as you realize, there is overlap between the World of Mormonism, the World of Mopologetics, and the Actual World--hence why we are having this conversation.

It's easy for you, Ray, to sit there and say, "Let's just have 'free speech'!" But that just isn't how things work in the LDS Church. Connections, influence, and hierarchy matter.

[_RayAgostini]

It's easy for you, Ray, to sit there and say, "Let's just have 'free speech'!" But that just isn't how things work in the LDS Church. Connections, influence, and hierarchy matter.

I'll have to come back to this tomorrow, but in brief, it's inconsistent to favour censorship in this case (if that's what you do), regardless of how either you or Kish view "the Church" or Mormon apologetics. I think the average person/reader will be smart and discerning enough to make up their own minds. We don't need "reverse censorship". I have no time left today.