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

[_lostindc]

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 the 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.

I agree Professor Scratch.

Also...I am not sure if you noticed but there are 19 guests on this board. I imagine I can name 4 or 5 of the 19 guests.

[_Droopy]

Dehlin is an apostate from the Church. He has spent many years attacking, impuginng, and damning it. D. Quinn is an apostate who has spent much of his adult life in hostility and criticism of the Church. The same is true of all of the September Six, and many others like them.

All brought their marginalization within the Church and with respect to the main body of the membership of the Church upon themselves. All who were excommunicated brought their excommunication upon themselves of their own free volition. All left the church and then turned against it. All have reaped the whirlwinds they have sown.

Apologetics is not attack (although it can be, and sometimes, of course, a good offense is the best defense) but necessary defense against the attacking wolves, who, strange as it may seem, although wolves they be, are very well practiced at playing a very different part, when the battle is joined and the exposing them for what they really are begins:




Scratch is adept at playing this game, as well as leaping out of his own sheepskin and going for the throat at the first smell of real blood.

[_Infymus]

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.

I absolutely agree Scratch. Straight up example that anyone here can agree with is the MDD board. Ask a serious question, get banned - even if the question was with absolute sincerity concerning truly troubling doctrines. Look at how blatantly Peterson attacked me years ago when he saw the Mormon Curtain.

And the kicker is this. The Q15 made a statement stating that they would no longer accept letters written by members concerning doctrine. Members were to refer to Bishops and Stake Presidents. B's and SP's then generally refer people where? To FARMS/NWI and FAIR where the member is then immediately kicked to the curb. And so where do those members end up? On my site and others - and then the whole can of worms is open.

[_Willy Law]

D. Quinn is an apostate .

In your opinion what is the difference between what Quinn wrote and what Bushman wrote?

[_Equality]

Dehlin is an apostate from the Church. He has spent many years attacking, impuginng, and damning it. D. Quinn is an apostate who has spent much of his adult life in hostility and criticism of the Church. The same is true of all of the September Six, and many others like them.

All brought their marginalization within the Church and with respect to the main body of the membership of the Church upon themselves. All who were excommunicated brought their excommunication upon themselves of their own free volition. All left the church and then turned against it. All have reaped the whirlwinds they have sown.

Apologetics is not attack (although it can be, and sometimes, of course, a good offense is the best defense) but necessary defense against the attacking wolves, who, strange as it may seem, although wolves they be, are very well practiced at playing a very different part, when the battle is joined and the exposing them for what they really are begins:

[_Fence Sitter]

D. Quinn is an apostate .

In your opinion what is the difference between what Quinn wrote and what Bushman wrote?

15-20 years of internet exposure.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm still very curious about what Scott Gordon said in response to John's "warning."

Meanwhile, we have been met with a stone wall of silence from Dr. Peterson, who instead has opted to write blog posts about how much he enjoys hearing vulgarity and profanity (even though he himself is too much of a milquetoast chicken to actually ever use expletives). It's psychologically fascinating to behold.

[Guest]

Interestingly, it seems that Allen "The Slug" Wyatt set up a kind of "gotcha" situation, where with the camera rolling, he seemed ready to catch Dehlin in all his "evil"

http://www.fairblog.org/2012/05/02/look ... ment-76459

On March 29, 2012, Utah Valley University hosted a fascinating conference entitled Mormonism and the Internet. Perhaps the most interesting exchanges, for me, were those in session five of the conference, which was a panel discussion among John Dehlin, Scott Gordon, and Rosemary Avance. UVU has just posted this particular conference session online, and I just watched it again.

Rather early in the panel discussion, I asked a question of John Dehlin, as a follow-up to his presentation earlier in the day.You can hear my question beginning at about 13:05 into the video:

People often study the same facts or issues and come to vastly different conclusions—some have their faith strengthened, while others have their faith destroyed. To what do you attribute this difference in outcome, and why do you feel that the stories of those who have suffered a negative outcome should be privileged over those with a positive outcome?

I don't see what the "gotcha" was, as you paint it. it seems like a pretty fair question.

Dehlin gives a rather lengthy reply, but Wyatt finds his answer unsatisfying, and he immediately assumes that Dehlin is prevaricating:

At first I thought that John was being evasive; he didn’t really answer my question which was how people can study the same data and come to differing conclusions.

Does he have a point, though? Dehlin, in his response, lays out a whole set of different reasons why people would approach the "study" (strange word choice, no?) of unpleasant Church history and doctrine in different ways. He explains that people come to different conclusions largely because of their personal situation within the Church: especially the extent to which their life station allows them to fully "question" the Church's truth claims. (For example, Dehlin implies at one point that it is probably impossible for BYU professors to openly and honestly question the Church's claims, because their employment is dependent upon their obedience.)

Wyatt wraps up his inquiry/attack with a series of rhetorical questions:

So I thought I would pose the question here that John raises in the middle of his answer; the one that he seems to obliquely answer by his own faith journey: What happens when a person looks honestly at the facts or issues of Mormonism? Does honesty demand that such questions inevitably lead to a loss of faith, or can one be honest and remain a member of the church?

So, whereas Dehlin's repsose confronts an array of problems and issues, Wyatt has worked to reframe all of this as a kind of black-and-white war, where anyone who stays in the Church is "dishonest." It appears that Wyatt is less interested in actually exploring the issues, and more interested in painting Dehlin as a villain, and in continuing the war with critics. Besides, I think the answer is fairly obvious, and that Wyatt already knows it: the answer is, "Yes." A clear example of this would be Terryl Givens, who appeared on Dehlin's podcast and openly admitted that the Church has basically lied by omission, and that people have every right to feel deceived if they don't learn about, say, polyandry until their forties (or whatever). Someone like Wyatt or DCP would never admit this, though. They may say that there are "problems" with CES, or something benign like that, but they would never, ever acknowledge the sense of betrayal that so many people feel--and this is what Dehlin has been trying to address and correct.

I would say the answer may be a "yes" too. But its still a fair question. Dehlin brought honesty and objectivity into it with his answer, at least according to the blog. On top of that, the question is definitely out there. I don't know how many times an ex-believer has brought up objectivity and honesty to me when discussion issues. It frequently turns to such terms. I think its unfair to say it was reframed by Wyatt himself. And I have yet to see any of these "attacks" as you continue to call them:

In any case, it is interesting to watch these attacks on Dehlin playing out.

"Attacks" Coming from you and this place is delicious irony. Afterall, all you do is attack Wyatt on this thread. and from what I see Wyatt did nothing but ask a question, question whether the answer was really and answer, write a blog and ask another legitimate question. For that he's a slug whose offering all kinds of attacks on Dehlin. Sheesh.

[/quote="Scratch"]Perhaps the most telling thing on the thread was the first comment, from none other than Mike "Tuffy" Parker, of SHIELDS fame:[/quote]

An important side note is that John Dehlin’s study — which he refers to when he speaks of “our data” — was not rigorously done. Instead of polling random former Mormons, he solicited responses from ex-Mormons who follow his podcast and run in the same circles with him. The bias here, from a polling standpoint, is enormous.

in short, his data tell us nothing because his survey sample is homogeneous and voluntary.

[quote='Scratch]Ah. So *that's* it. This is why Dehlin is threatening to them.

The Mopologists have always, always relied on the tactic of insisting that the "sense of betrayal" that I described above is false. We have seen evidence for this again and again: they accuse questioning posters of being trolls. They do what Wyatt did and insist that "smart people can still believe!" (hence "Mormon Scholars Testify"). They paint disaffected members as sinners, lazy, stupid, etc. So Dehlin's study--regardless of its methodological flaws--must be incredibly threatening to them, since it could potentially demonstrate just how real and concrete the problems actually are. If the study's results are true, it takes away one of the Mopologists' main avenues of attack. So of course Wyatt, Parker, Smith and others are freaking out.[/quote]

I would probably call your post here as more of a freak out. They didn't say any of this. They don't report being threatened, nor do they attack, at least from what you've shown. I think its a fair thing to bring up--is the study sound. That's not an attack. That's nothing but questioning the study itself.

And "Tuffy" Parker's criticisms seem somewhat overblown. Yes, it is a problem that the survey was "voluntary" (has there ever been a legit social science survey that wasn't techincally "voluntary"?), but I don't know why Parker is assuming that the sample set is somehow *not* indicative of wider trends in Mormonism. He complains that "[Dehlin] solicited responses from ex-Mormons who follow his podcast and run in the same circles with him," though it's not quite clear why Parker thinks this, or why it amounts to a legitimate criticism. As far as I can tell, Dehlin has an enormous audience that encompasses both believing LDS and ex-Mormons. He attracts people like Richard Bushman, Mike Quinn, and Terryl Givens as guests, so I see no reason to assume that the only respondents were "ex-Mormons ...[who]..run in the same circles." I bet that Parker himself listens to the podcast, so, again: Who is he talking about here?

In any event, it will be very interesting to see if these "farm team" Mopologists will be able to restrain their anger and hatred, or if they will step up their attacks on Dehlin.

That may be, Scratch in his pants. But its not an attack to question the study itself. Its questioning. Its thinking about it and pondering whether the conclusions should be accepted.

This appears to be more of a hit piece then anything demonstrated to this point. Granted I don't know anything about a hit piece, but this surely doesn't demonstrate anything as Scratch would paint it, it seems to me.

[_Mary]

It seems to me that most active members I know are not interested in John Dehlin, Joanna Brooks or any one else that they see as on the 'fringe' of Mormonism. They are ignored. They are particularly ignored by those for whom testimony, lifestyle and belief are more important than anything that history or interpretations of history might throw up.

I linked to John's 'Why Mormons Leave' on my Facebook page and one member pm'd me to say that I should take it off because she didn't know the stuff he brought up and felt it wasn't faith promoting and might disturb other faithful members of the church. She wasn't interested in whether it was true or valid or not, just whether it was faith promoting. She took me off as a friend and that was that.

Bringing proceedings against John, for whom it is hard to categorise as an 'apostate' in my opinion, would be pointless and be more trouble than it is worth.

I watched the UVU Q and A session all the way through twice, and when I linked to it I found it easy to categorise Scott as a Mormon Apologist and Rosemary as a Non-member Academic. John I would put right there in the middle.

John, on his Facebook page has just put up a disclaimer of sorts about his position with regard to the church. He is no wolf in sheep's clothing. He has always, as far as I'm concerned, been honest about where he stands. I have never seen or heard of him attack the church in any way.

What on earth would he be excommunicated for?

[_Droopy]

What on earth would he be excommunicated for?

Open, public rebellion against and active criticism of the Church, its core teachings, and its leaders, with the intent of influencing further dissent, rebellion, and apostasy among other members.

That's more than enough grounds for the separation of anyone from his membership in the Church.