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

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray:

Why, if, as you say, you "respect" John Dehlin, would you want the Mopologists to attack him via a "hit piece"? What's in it for you?

Plus, you said above that you "respect" Dan Peterson, but where has he been amidst all of this? Why don't you email him and get his side of the story?

[Guest]

That's the argument I've often read here, and elsewhere, that MAD-style apologetics has turned many away from the Church. It made me quite anti-Mormon for a while.

My mistake. I thought you had written MDB, not MD*D*B. I know that a number of MDDB exiles have come here after being trashed there, so doubtless it has helped some people along the road to apostasy. Whether that number competes with the Tanners or not I can't say. The Tanners have been around many years.

I'm not only taking about missionaries, but stake presidents and bishops. I think you grossly underestimate their general ignorance of these matters.

Ray, you are free to feel as unconcerned as you like about all of this. I am concerned about my friend John Dehlin. To me the matter is not some abstract issue about what the real chances are. For me it is a matter of personal connection with John. I don't want him to have to deal with the Mopologetic slam in one of their "scholarly" journals.

If your average bishop "Down Under" does not know DCP, I am not sure what that proves about your average bishop in Utah. BYU is much more a part of the Utah world than it is the Australian mindscape, I would imagine.

What also puzzles me is that anyone would think that should this "hit piece" be censored, and that's what it amounts to, it's going to come out anyway, in other forms, in other publications, on FAIR, and FAIRWiki, and on the FAIR blog.

You delude yourself.

Might as well tackle it head-on once and for all.

Ha! That's hilarious, Ray. I have no doubt whatsoever that these weasels will continue to do their dirty work. If anyone is deluded here, I think it is you. You seem to grant absolutely no significance to the existence of pseudo-scholarly print journals that the LDS Church spends good money to support and house at BYU. They don't publish this stuff for craps and giggles, Ray. They do because scholarly journals lend a certain authority to words that wikipedia does not. Doubtless they will continue on their smear parade in whatever sneaky, underhanded ways they can. But their little slams in wikipedia don't carry the same weight as a 100-page hardcopy journal article written in scholarese.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ha! That's hilarious, Ray. I have no doubt whatsoever that these weasels will continue to do their dirty work. If anyone is deluded here, I think it is you. You seem to grant absolutely no significance to the existence of pseudo-scholarly print journals that the LDS Church spends good money to support and house at BYU. They don't publish this stuff for s***s and giggles, Ray. They do because scholarly journals lend a certain authority to words that wikipedia does not. Doubtless they will continue on their smear parade in whatever sneaky, underhanded ways they can. But their little slams in wikipedia don't carry the same weight as a 100-page hardcopy journal article written in scholarese.

This point is worth emphasizing. Say whatever you want about the methodological flaws in Dr. Shades's "Internet/Chapel Mormon" divide, but the fact is that there is a clear hierarchy (or hierarchies) within the Church. So Ray, Carton, and others are right that the typical rank-and-file member, or the bishop of Podunk Stake in Australia might not have heard of the BYU apologists. But as you point out, Reverend, these texts are written in "scholarese," which means they're dense and they are intended more for the educated classes of LDS. Plus, they operate using a professional fundraiser supplied by the Church itself. So the principal readership for the Review are educated, upper-middle class and/or affluent Latter-day Saints. Another way of saying this is that this "smear piece" would be likely to land in the lap of a lot of LDS who weild lots of power and/or $$$.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray:

Why, if, as you say, you "respect" John Dehlin, would you want the Mopologists to attack him via a "hit piece"? What's in it for you?

Questioning my motives, now?

What's in it for you, Scratch?

Plus, you said above that you "respect" Dan Peterson, but where has he been amidst all of this? Why don't you email him and get his side of the story?

I respect him enough to cease and desist from directly or indirectly continuing to support your six year slander of him here (compare 100 pages to six years of defamation). I think his Mormon Stories interview is sufficient to take a much broader view. I know what his "TBM" views are, and I know how literally he believes in Mormonism, but it's not my view, for many reasons, yet I can still respect his feelings/beliefs (after all, I once held them too), but I doubt I'd ever support a "drive" to "expose" John as some kind of "wolf".

I don't need to email him to "get his side of the story". I already know it, because I know where he stands on these matters, and even if we disagree on approaches to this, I'm not going to once again sour the friendship by joining any "anti-DCP crusades". Maybe I'm too much in the "middle" for your liking (or maybe even DCP's).

Tough. When it gets too convoluted, with both sides yelling at each other, I'll bow out.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray:

Why, if, as you say, you "respect" John Dehlin, would you want the Mopologists to attack him via a "hit piece"? What's in it for you?

Questioning my motives, now?

What's in it for you, Scratch?

Dodging the question, eh? Okay.

Nothing is in it for me, Ray. I wouldn't benefit by having Dehlin get attacked in the Review. I said earlier that I would be interested in seeing what the "hit piece" said merely for the sake of curiosity, but apart from that, nothing is "in it" for me.

Plus, you said above that you "respect" Dan Peterson, but where has he been amidst all of this? Why don't you email him and get his side of the story?

I respect him enough to cease and desist from directly or indirectly continuing to support your six year slander of him here (compare 100 pages to six years of defamation). I think his Mormon Stories interview is sufficient to take a much broader view. I know what his "TBM" views are, and I know how literally he believes in Mormonism, but it's not my view, for many reasons, yet I can still respect his feelings/beliefs (after all, I once held them too), but I doubt I'd ever support a "drive" to "expose" John as some kind of "wolf".

I don't need to email him to "get his side of the story". I already know it, because I know where he stands on these matters, and even if we disagree on approaches to this, I'm not going to once again sour the friendship by joining any "anti-DCP crusades". Maybe I'm too much in the "middle" for your liking (or maybe even DCP's).

Tough. When it gets too convoluted, with both sides yelling at each other, I'll bow out.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. "I'm not going to sour the friendship"? What, just by asking for his side of the story? That doesn't sound like a "friendship" to me. It sounds more like a Fanboy/Idol relationship. I'm surprised that you would allow yourself to be so intimidated by him.

My point being: there would be no harm in asking.

[_RayAgostini]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. "I'm not going to sour the friendship"? What, just by asking for his side of the story? That doesn't sound like a "friendship" to me. It sounds more like a Fanboy/Idol relationship. I'm surprised that you would allow yourself to be so intimidated by him.

My point being: there would be no harm in asking.

Don't intimidate me. You are the Master of twisting what people say. If someone started a campaign to expose your real identity - I'd be in it 100%.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray, I answered your question about "what's in it for me," but you still haven't my original question. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for Prof. Peterson's side of the story. It really is astonishing to me that you think that's too much to ask, and that it would "sour the friendship." I mean, don't you want to know--from the Horse's Mouth Itself, so to speak--whether or not the Mopologists intended to portray Dehlin as a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? And if DCP gave a different account of this, who would you believe?

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, I answered your question about "what's in it for me," but you still haven't my original question. And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for Prof. Peterson's side of the story. It really is astonishing to me that you think that's too much to ask, and that it would "sour the friendship." I mean, don't you want to know--from the Horse's Mouth Itself, so to speak--whether or not the Mopologists intended to portray Dehlin as a "wolf in sheep's clothing"? And if DCP gave a different account of this, who would you believe?

You don't get it, do you? And why all the hypotheticals? I don't care what you "think". If they have a "hit piece", I'd read it, and then offer my opinions, and that's all there is to it.

[_RockSlider]

If the hit piece was (is) published, maybe the reverse happens … an even cursory study of John’s work might reveal to the searcher that John’s fruits have been that of a Sheppard, not a wolf, reflecting poorly on the attackers.

As for John’s “local leaders” being trigged to nuke him because of a hit piece … come on, they have known and dealt with him for many years now. He is not new on their radar.

And look at all the interviews that John seems to get with the GA’s trying to find direction to slow the decay. That must drive MI/FAIR absolutely nuts. No, they would have exed John way back if they were going to. It would take a radical act on John’s part, not DCP or Scott or anyone else at this point to get him ex’ed

[_Kishkumen]

I think his Mormon Stories interview is sufficient to take a much broader view. I know what his "TBM" views are, and I know how literally he believes in Mormonism, but it's not my view, for many reasons, yet I can still respect his feelings/beliefs (after all, I once held them too), but I doubt I'd ever support a "drive" to "expose" John as some kind of "wolf".

I don't need to email him to "get his side of the story". I already know it, because I know where he stands on these matters, and even if we disagree on approaches to this, I'm not going to once again sour the friendship by joining any "anti-DCP crusades". Maybe I'm too much in the "middle" for your liking (or maybe even DCP's).

Tough. When it gets too convoluted, with both sides yelling at each other, I'll bow out.

Daniel Peterson will believe whatever he likes about Mormonism, and it matters not one bit to me. May he flourish in his faith as the day is long. I don't care. And may he testify with a heart full of faith, joy, and conviction to all who would listen to him. Fantastic. I am enthused by the very thought. Sounds great to me.

What I have a problem with is people like Greg Smith writing lengthy slams against members of the LDS Church who are in good standing. I find the whole enterprise to be low and despicable. To the extent that Daniel Peterson assists in such attacks, I have a problem with him. These aren't just statistics. They are people with feelings, who hold membership in the same Church as these guys do. Unless I have it wrong, no one has appointed them to a calling whereby they hunt down people who don't share their particular religious views and hold them up to public criticism, lampooning, and ridicule.