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

[_Kishkumen]

On the message board where my Malevolent Stalker holds forth, he and several of his acolytes have been hyperventilating for seven outraged pages now -- and the thread may actually be picking up steam -- about an alleged "smear" or "hit piece" that not a single one of them has even laid eyes on.

I'm struggling to see a denial from daniel....

Denial? It looks more like an implicit acknowledgment of the existence of a written critique of Dehlin. I think the only thing he contests is the characterization of it as a "smear" or "hit piece." Which means, as usual, that material most people would view as unfairly critical and ad hominem about Dehlin will be viewed as fair criticism with the same chin-stroking approbation many of the other slams printed in these journals is accorded by him. The truth is he simply doesn't get it, and nothing will change his mind about that.

I have known several people in my life who have Asperger syndrome or some similar cognitive issue. Obviously they are fine people on the whole, but there are certain noticeable oddities in their approach to the world and their interaction with others. I don't know that one could pinpoint Peterson's blindspot when it comes to his affection for the spirited barrage of insult and innuendo upon his ideological and religious foes often found in the journals he edits. Clearly he accepts it as great fun and will defend it to his dying day. No one will ever persuade him that it has cost the Church dearly, and impacted numerous people negatively in the way it invites and encourages further conflict and distrust of the Church.

As someone commented here: to them it is a game. If anything, they thrive on the very controversy that this thread represents. Having fully internalized the narrative of persecution, any criticism from the wrong quarter will be greeted like a multi-course banquet on a junket. When one leg of the tour has ended, another is just around the corner promising its own, unique delights. They are all roughly the same, but they are just different enough to remain savory to the palate.

[_Kishkumen]

Classic dismissal.

Is it a "100 page hit piece" or is it a "multi-page critique?"

We may never know. I think we should immediately censor all "critiques" in the world. That way, no one will have their feelings hurt.

The more I think about it, the more this guy sounds like the author of the critique himself.

[_Kishkumen]

It's so classic...and condemning. I have incontrovertible proof of 1) the existence of the essay/hit piece....2) his knowledge about it....3) the GA condemnation of the whole enterprise....and 4) his direct censure (as it relates to all this).....so his use of the word "alleged" stands as a classic, yet condemning example of his continued disingenuous-ness as an apologist. The only thing that keeps me from releasing the evidence is my respect for those (including the GA's) who have supported me -- but you can count on him and his followers to take advantage of me in this regard (plausible deniability -- another classic LDS apologetic tactic...it's their whole foundation...really...when you get right down to it).

"static" (Greg Smith?) is calling the above a lie. How credible is his accusation?

[_Willy Law]

Pardon me. I thought we were talking about a "hit piece" that was supposed to be "100 pages," not a "multi-page, footnoted critique." My god, man! If someone can't write a critique then what can they do?

And no, I will not ask them. As I said, I believe your wacky theories - all of them.

You seem to be everything John was claiming about apologists wrapped up in one hurtful, obtuse little man. And you wonder why questioning members of the church run to the critics side (like I did) when they see this type of dialogue from the church's apologists.

[_static]

You seem to think that you have caught mormonstories making inconsistent statements about the document. You are either disingenuously pretending to misunderstand, or you really don't grasp the point of using the second description, rather than the first, in a question to DCP. You seem articulate enough that I would be surprised if you weren't being disingenuous, rather than just dumb, but I suppose everybody has lapses in judgment.

Forgive me if one is not supposed to read the opening post of a thread in order to determine what might be discussed in said thread.

From the original post

I cannot help but wonder how the cancellation of this "hit piece"....

mormonstories also referred to it as a "hit piece" in the second post

The primary author on the hit piece was....

The phrase "hit piece" appears seven times on the first page of this thread. What is the purpose of using emotionally charged terms like "hit piece?" The answer is simple: conspiracy theorists and nut jobs eat it up, and I am no exception. This all must be true, because we have no evidence, but it seems plausible, right?

When asked whether mormonstories had seen the alleged hit piece, he replied

no

So, mormonstories definitely made inconsistent statements about a document he has no knowledge of.

And that is evidence enough for me. It has to be true.

But back to hating DCP. How dare he write a multi-page critique! LOL.

[_static]

You seem to be everything John was claiming about apologists wrapped up in one hurtful, obtuse little man. And you wonder why questioning members of the church run to the critics side (like I did) when they see this type of dialogue from the church's apologists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.

[_Willy Law]

You seem to be everything John was claiming about apologists wrapped up in one hurtful, obtuse little man. And you wonder why questioning members of the church run to the critics side (like I did) when they see this type of dialogue from the church's apologists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. All I am calling for is compassion and reason. Ask ourselves what is more likely of the two scenarios:

+There is a "hit piece" which no one has seen nor has any information about other than conspiracy theories.
+There is not a "hit piece"

I have no quarrel with anyone here. mormonstories seems like a nice enough guy. I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.

When John Dehlin says he has "incontrovertible proof" that is good enough for me.
I do love your idea of asking ourselves what is more likely. After being duped for 30+ years I am trying to use this approach in my life.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I just don't think it is a good idea to tear others down.[/color]

Then you must really hate the FARMS Review... and DCP's blog, for that matter.... And SHIELDS, and FAIR, etc., etc.

[_SteelHead]

Essentially calls John a liar while at the same time calling for compassion. Splits hairs on hit piece/critique.

Got anything else of value to add, Static?

[_static]

When John Dehlin says he has "incontrovertible proof" that is good enough for me.

And it is for me, too. That's why I've said multiple times that I believe this wacky conspiracy theory must be 100% true. After all, John Dehlin said so, right?

I have incontrovertible proof of Bigfoot. Is that enough for you?

I do love your idea of asking ourselves what is more likely. After being duped for 30+ years I am trying to use this approach in my life.

As well you should. I don't know what you mean by "being duped for 30+ years" were you the original Manchurian Candidate?