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

[_Doctor Scratch]

Stemelbow:

Do you think John is lying?

'bout what? When he claimed DCP denied the existence of an essay? That was a lie, sure. Do I think he is lying about what? I don't see much claimed by him except that he doesn't like Daniel Peterson and wants to mock the guy. Kinda like you. "hit piece"? I don't' know. people can consider this thread a hit piece if one wants. Its a pretty subjective and dramatic claim. Do I care? Not at all.

You didn't really answer the question, stem. I asked you, quite simply, whether or not you think Dehlin is lying.

And if not, do you think he was lied to by the General Authoity/ies who interevened?

I don't' have any quotes from any GA. All we have is the idea that a GA put a stop to some piece written to critique John's work with Mormon stories. Or so it seems. Yet, John and no one else here has seen anything of the sort. We aren't talking about anything but your guys' (you, John and others) continued contempt for some of the LDS folks.

So do you think that a GA would "put a stop to some piece" for no good reason?

[_stemelbow]

'bout what? When he claimed DCP denied the existence of an essay? That was a lie, sure.

CFR

here's the lie, Buffalo. He said:

" 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)."

DCP denied there being any hit piece or smear, it seems. He did not say anything about an alleged essay. It was a dishonest way to paint it if you ask me. A clever little trick. I should have said "when he attempted to suggest DCP is saying there is an alleged essay?" yes, that was the lie, or dishonest remark, if you prefer.

[_stemelbow]

You didn't really answer the question, stem. I asked you, quite simply, whether or not you think Dehlin is lying.

Lying about what? That he didn't see the piece at all? He claimed he didn't see it. He claimed he has proof of an essays existence, but we don't know the content. I take him at his word here. Not a lie.

So do you think that a GA would "put a stop to some piece" for no good reason?

Sure. Everything is possible. he could have also put a stop to it for a good reason. Sadly no one here seems to know anything, but that's not stopping the campaign.

[_Doctor Scratch]

You didn't really answer the question, stem. I asked you, quite simply, whether or not you think Dehlin is lying.

Lying about what? That he didn't see the piece at all? He claimed he didn't see it. He claimed he has proof of an essays existence, but we don't know the content. I take him at his word here. Not a lie.

"Here"? Meaning what? Which part of his account are you calling into question? He said that Greg Smith authored a negative, 100-page article, and that the article was sufficiently venomous to merit the intervention of a General Authority.

Do you believe all of this is true, or not?

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, about a hit piece (or shall we say mild critique) that has not been shown to exist. It's all a wacky conspiracy theory, and I for one fully believe it to be the truth without any evidence whatever, don't you?

So, in other words, in your view John is lying about this. You would claim that Greg Smith did not write a long, biting critique of John Dehlin that was quashed by a General Authority. It is all made up, just a conspiracy theory.

You are a nut. John did not make this up. Ultimately the information has come from a reliable source. No one, including Daniel Peterson, has directly denied the existence of this piece.

It was a bit off topic, and I will happily grant that. Sorry to have confused you.

Your deceptions don't confuse me. They are intended to mislead others, sure. I am simply pointing out some of your many deceptions.

Take a look at page 1, please.

Yes, from a reliable source he was made aware of the existence of the hit piece.

There was no witness. There is only speculation. Until evidence is produced, I choose to totally believe every wack-job conspiracy theorist. Don't you?

The person who told John Dehlin the information was a witness to the hit piece. There was no "speculation," and you are an idiot.

Sorry. I get my iniquitous dastards mixed up.

Sure you do. Lies, errors, misleading statements, and poor logic. Your posts are a goldmine for such stuff.

It hasn't been established that there was a critique or a hit piece.

I trust John as a reliable source. Daniel Peterson or Greg Smith could deny this if it were untrue. Neither has. Daniel has even written about this thread, and he has not denied the existence of Greg Smith's unfriendly critique of John Dehlin.

Yes, I lie all the time. I once started this big rumor about someone I don't like writing a hit piece on me. It was pretty elaborate.

What an unprincipled weasel you are! On the one hand you will say that you are not calling John Dehlin a liar, and then you proceed to imply that he has fabricated this whole story. Screw you, asshole.

[_Buffalo]

here's the lie, Buffalo. He said:

" 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)."

DCP denied there being any hit piece or smear, it seems. He did not say anything about an alleged essay. It was a dishonest way to paint it if you ask me. A clever little trick. I should have said "when he attempted to suggest DCP is saying there is an alleged essay?" yes, that was the lie, or dishonest remark, if you prefer.

Putting words in John's mouth is dishonest. I'd accuse you of lying, but from experience I know you just didn't understand his post.

[_Kishkumen]

DCP denied there being any hit piece or smear, it seems. He did not say anything about an alleged essay. It was a dishonest way to paint it if you ask me. A clever little trick. I should have said "when he attempted to suggest DCP is saying there is an alleged essay?" yes, that was the lie, or dishonest remark, if you prefer.

Haha, stem. Very funny. Well, you, your pal "static," and Daniel Peterson can play your dumb little sophistical games, but there is little reason to disbelieve John Dehlin when he claims that he has proof of the existence of the hit piece. All any of you have done in reality is quibble about the description. Well, go take a long walk off a short pier. I don't care that you don't believe that nasty FARMS reviews are hit pieces or what have you. Most people with half a brain who don't live under the warped vision of a siege mentality realize that the nastiness of this writing cannot be rationalized on the basis that the Church is under attack from all sides. A number of the nasty attacks have been against well meaning scholars and members of the LDS Church in good standing. What we have here is good old fashioned McConkie-style takedowns of the people one disagrees with. That is the classic Mopologetic MO. It was wrong when McConkie did it, but he at least had apostolic authority to back it up. These vicious apologetic attacks were not penned by an apostle. I am glad that a GA had the good sense to intervene.

[_static]

So, in other words, in your view John is lying about this. You would claim that Greg Smith did not write a long, biting critique of John Dehlin that was quashed by a General Authority. It is all made up, just a conspiracy theory.

I believe John Dehlin was misinformed, and is perpetuating that misinformation because he doesn't like DCP or Greg. He isn't necessarily lying; he probably didn't know he was misinformed. Like me, and like you he probably automatically believes every wacko conspiracy theory before any evidence is presented.

Yes, from a reliable source he was made aware of the existence of the hit piece.

In other words, he perpetuated misinformation. Unless a "hit piece" is produced, I withhold judgement on its existence. Knowing Greg, I choose to believe it doesn't exist at all.

I realize this is in stark contrast to your belief system, where, if DCP says something exists but can't produce it (Carla Ogden letter) you automatically believe it never existed. When Dehlin says any old thing you automatically believe him.

Well, I can't blame you. I love conspiracy theories, too. This board is full of them.

The person who told John Dehlin the information was a witness to the hit piece. There was no "speculation," and you are an idiot.

And how many "he said she said" levels are we going to regress to before you'll think critically about this?

I trust John as a reliable source.

I withhold judgement until suitable evidence is presented. That is the difference between you and myself.

What an unprincipled weasel you are! On the one hand you will say that you are not calling John Dehlin a liar, and then you proceed to imply that he has fabricated this whole story. Screw you, asshole.

Temper, temper. Get a sense of humor.

[_RayAgostini]

Somebody please capture his post via copy/paste (oh wait, I already have).

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).

Does anyone else note how sad it is that Daniel Peterson now communicates from a solo blog where he doesn't even allow comments.....that he no longer even has the ability or credibility to directly engage in the difficult conversations? This is LDS apologetics in the 20th and 21st centuries...retreat only to places where you are surrounded by supporters...because if you engage critics directly in a neutral forum....you come off looking so silly...as if you are trying to prove the location of Santa's workshop.

I really, honestly, truly feel sorry for Daniel Peterson, Mike Ash, Allen Wyatt, Scott Gordon, Trevor Holyoak, John Lynch, Jack Welch, etc. They have built their houses upon sand, and now the foundation is slowly washing away. Even the brethren seem to see the writing on the wall (though we obviously have a long way to go in that regard). Still -- so much of their life's work is truly (and unfortunately) an embarrassment and damaging to the church, Mormonism and Mormons alike: a sad, destructive sham.

So I feel sorry for them that in some sense, they have been (and ultimately will be) left out to dry. As dupes. More importantly, I feel sorry for them that in trying to be helpful to the situation, they have only accelerated the pain/damage.....vs. served as a constructive part of the solution. The data from our survey are very clear (at least to me) -- LDS apologetics accelerate disaffection and disillusionment from the LDS church, because: 1) their responses are often mean-spirited and un-Christlike, and 2) they are simply not credible (i.e. tapirs, steel isn't steel, etc.)...so when someone who is truly struggling reads their stuff, they eventually walk away saying, "If this is the best that the church can do....then I'm outta here."

Up until now (2012), LDS apologetics have been a tragic, damaging, train-wreck-of-an embarrassment to everyone involved. May it rest in peace.

My suggestion to this board: At some point, it's time to ignore the troll(s)....and move on. They're just. not. credible...and honestly do not deserve our (or anyone's) attention any longer. The scholarly/scientific community ignores them (see previous comment about Santa and the North Pole). The believing bloggernacle ignores them (except to mock or condemn them). Mormonism writ large ignores them. It is only us (and the Deseret News) who gives them life/airplay. I think that the smartest thing Mormon Discussions could ever do would be to stop giving them air time...and let them fade away.

They are just....not....credible in any meaningful way, shape or form. They are a tragic, damaging joke. If I weren't so thoroughly exposed on a daily basis to the damage they have done (and continue to do) to thousands of Mormons and to the church, I would not speak so harshly. But I am....so I do.

My 2 cents.

My message to FAIR/FARMS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8

Please stop. You're hurting people. You're hurting the church. You are embarrassing yourselves, and Mormonism writ large. Please, please, please find another way. Anytime you want me help...I'll be there for you. I can help you. Just call or email. 435 227-5776 mormonstories@gmail.com

I really didn't expect this from you, and in my view it's uncharacteristic of the "face" you've provided in places like Mormon Stories. Maybe I don't really know you all that well. I'm still shaking my head and wondering if John Dehlin wrote the above.

[_Tobin]

I really didn't expect this from you, and in my view it's uncharacteristic of the "face" you've provided in places like Mormon Stories. Maybe I don't really know you all that well. I'm still shaking my head and wondering if John Dehlin wrote the above.

Agreed. This actually surprised me a bit as well. Oh well, I'll keep listening because I find much of the material interesting. But, I would like to see this "essay/hit piece/whatever" someday and make up my own mind about it.