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

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

I'm not advocating censorship, Ray--quite the opposite. I'm simply pointing out how things work in Mormon culture. You ought to know that--don't you remember what happened the last time you tried to participate on FAIR/MAD/MDD?

And on a sidenote, I noticed that today set a record for the number of visitors to the site at one time. I'm guessing that this thread is a major reason why.

[_Stormy Waters]

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 agree. Let's have it out. I think the contrast in style between FAIR and John Dehlin will make FAIR look terrible. That and I'm honestly curious to see what they think is wrong with what John Dehlin has done. He seems to have only promoted open dialogue. It's not his fault if a byproduct of open dialogue is that some lose their faith.

[_moksha]

I WANT Wyatt, Peterson and his apologetic tripe to attack John. I want more people to know John. I want more focus on him. That will cause more people to question the Cult of Mormonism. And when they do excommunicate him, it will cause a huge exodus.

The Church would not be willing to portray itself as repressive and Scientology-like in dealing with polite dissenting views when a Mormon is running for President. They know how to get things done.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Damn.

I picked the wrong week to stop reading the board.

This is gonna be epic.

*grabs popcorn*

[_Kishkumen]

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?

Ray, this isn't a discussion of your pet topic of how terrible MDB is.

In terms of protecting John Dehlin's membership, all it takes is a group of highly motivated local leaders who have been fed the message through Church-approved BYU channels that Dehlin is an enemy of the faith and bingo! Church court. This is how Sonja Johnson lost her membership. A zealous local bishop, much the same kind of personality as Greg Smith, decided to play hero.

I am not saying that free speech doesn't exist in the U.S. and on the internet. I am saying that it does not exist in the LDS Church, which means that the Church controls those venues of speech that it has conditioned members to trust. While the internet has eroded its ability to control the message, it is still fair to say that items published by the Church or one of its organs like BYU will carry far more weight with bishops and stake presidents, and will have more potential in the short run to lead to Church discipline of some kind, than a discussion here or on the FAIR blog.

That is because of the weight publication by the Church holds. Just look at bcspace's obsession. It doesn't come from nowhere.

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!

If Greg wants to publish it online in some unofficial online forum, let him. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is a slam on John Dehlin that has the appearance of Church approval and looks like a run up to excommunication proceedings. Understand?

Still, it is easy for you to sit back and sound off on having Greg Smith publish his attack piece on Dehlin, but what does it feel like to have 100 pages of paper publication attacking you out there? It has to be an awful experience. This is the most immediate impact it has, and it is the very kind of bullying effect that these apologetic publications thrive on. It's SOP for these apologists, and it gets nasty. They set themselves up as the arbiters of orthodoxy, and if they decide that you are a threat of some kind, look out.

And they operate under the BYU masthead. None of us do.

[_Buffalo]

[_lostindc]

Damn.

I picked the wrong week to stop reading the board.

This is gonna be epic.

*grabs popcorn*

I just popped about 15 pounds after reading this thread.

I am excited, yet concerned, regarding the prospects of an apologist such as Will Shryversererer or DCP responding. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if one of the inner circle's h1tmen respond first, such as Scott Lloyd.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Based on their experience with Grant Palmer and Simon Southernton, Danno and his posse know that the sheep will be far less affected by work from a person who has suffered a church court.

Attacking the author/creator is the easy way out.

Coercing the unwitting leaders of John's ward and stake to pass John through a church court will help place a stain(recognizable only by the sheep) on anything John Dehlin has touched.

Now when a investigating member brandishes books from Simon the bishop will throw up the defense of "you know he was exed for personal conduct issues?, DO YOU WANT TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE??"

Or a ward member asks about Palmers book, "You know he was disfellowshipped and he eventually left the church!" OR they will lie and say he was exed.

Now with Bro Dehlin and his website and conferences.. "You know that he was.........."

Same ol mo'pologetics. Attack the author/creator rather than the issues!

Why?

They know the issues are indefensible.

[_Fifth Columnist]

I am quite glad that Scratch is keeping these apologists feet to the fire. I am particularly glad that John was able to express himself in this forum and gives us some more information.

I agree. Doctor Scratch is truly doing God's work. I can only hope that he will be able to continue fighting this fight until the seedy and rotten underbelly of Mopologetics is exposed for everyone to see. God's speed Doctor Scratch!

[Guest]

There is a basic difference in approach and belief that's in conflict here. Dehlin wants to help people who have been disturbed or upset by problems in Church history and doctrine; the Mopologists want to marginalize or ridicule those same people. This is so obvious (in my opinion) that it baffles me that otherwise decent people would want to defend the apologists and their behavior. Of course The Hon. Rev. Kishkumen is completely right: an MI-published smear of Dehlin would have a horrific effect on his standing in the LDS community. Every LDS "Yes Man" would look at this and would extend the whisper campaign that Peterson, Midgley, and Smith began. This is how these apologists work: they've done similar things to Grant Palmer, to Mike Quinn, and countless others.