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

[_SteelHead]

Where did DCP deny the existence of said piece? On his blog he didn't. He just noted that scratch has not read/seen it.

[_stemelbow]

I don't like Daniel at all.

But that's beside the point.

Stem, did a GA censor MI over something to do with JD?

yes/no answer please.

No idea. But to be clear, it doesn't bother me at all if it did happen. Not in the least. Unfortunately we don't know the reason for any censor if it did happen, which we don't know. And we know the MI ultimately agreed with teh GA and didn't put out the piece in question. There is unity amongst the Mormons--what a grand story that everyone is missing.

[Guest]

Mr. Dehlin is a brave man. By walking the middle path, he raises the ire of both apologists and the more extreme critics. He wants everyone to take their own path, but by making informed decisions, not based on white-washed history. He doesn't care if your path takes to leaving the church, staying in as a NOM, or a full believer. He just tries to help people be informed both about church history and also the social costs of leaving the church.

He has a lot more character than those who seek to destroy his reputation at the Maxwell Institute.

[_Buffalo]

CFR

I don't hate DCP. He's actually a lot like me - an internet addict who is kind of snarky and unkind on the internet, but pretty nice in real life.

Daniel clearly denied the existence of a "hit piece" or "smear", John clearly tried to creatively change his denial to "essay/hit piece" giving the impression that Dan was claiming there was nothing written at all. You whine about me, but give John a free pass again. I think its clear you don't like Daniel at all. Its easy to say otherwise though.

CFR

[_stemelbow]

CFR

You guys and your tricky tactics. I'll spell it out again. DCP called a "hit piece" or "smear" alleged. He didn't call an essay alleged. he's not denying soemthing was written by someone. Yet, John attempted to take his words and give the impression he was saying an essay was alleged. It was putting things in DCP's mouth. Clearly, you'll deny it till the cows come home because: 1. You are clearly biased against the religion. 2. You don't' like DCP. 3. You will complain about the slightest indiscretions by LDS but will happily ignore indiscretions by those who aren't believers.

[_Yoda]

If DCP did his job as the Editor of MI, and pulled the article on the advice of the GA, then why is Dehlin upset with DCP? Shouldn't Dehlin's anger be more with whomever wrote the article to begin with?

What is also confusing to me is that Dehlin, himself, claimed that he has not READ the article in question. He has evidence that it was apparently negative. It sounds like whomever the GA was who read the article, told him about it. But he has not even read the article himself.

And, since the article has been clearly pulled, is not being published, and has apprently been read by NO ONE, what, exactly are we talking about here? What am I missing?

I would say that if negative articles are actively being pulled from publication, this is something that should be celebrated. I also don't really see why DCP is being portrayed as the ultimate bad guy here, simply because he is the Editor of MI. If he made the ultimate call to actually pull the article in question, then shouldn't he be celebrated as well?

[_RockSlider]

No idea. But to be clear, it doesn't bother me at all if it did happen. Not in the least. Unfortunately we don't know the reason for any censor if it did happen, which we don't know. And we know the MI ultimately agreed with the GA and didn't put out the piece in question. There is unity amongst the Mormons--what a grand story that everyone is missing.

I think Mormons also pride themselves on putting their light upon the mountain side, not hidden under a bushel basket.

Come on Stem let truth prevail. Your buds with Dan, write him and ask:

1. Dan did a GA ask MI to not publish an article about JD?
If yes, enquiring minds might want to ask further
2. Why did they ask for it to squelched?
3. How did they even find out about the article in the first place?

Stand up for the truth Stem … and please share it with us when you find out.

[_Buffalo]

CFR

You guys and your tricky tactics. I'll spell it out again. DCP called a "hit piece" or "smear" alleged. He didn't call an essay alleged. he's not denying soemthing was written by someone. Yet, John attempted to take his words and give the impression he was saying an essay was alleged. It was putting things in DCP's mouth. Clearly, you'll deny it till the cows come home because: 1. You are clearly biased against the religion. 2. You don't' like DCP. 3. You will complain about the slightest indiscretions by LDS but will happily ignore indiscretions by those who aren't believers.

Are you aware what the acronym CFR stands for?

Hint: it's not a call for rebuttal.

[_SteelHead]

So let's review what we agree on:
1. Some essay or something was written at MI.
2. It was sufficiently controversial that a GA intervened and blocked its publication.
3.Said piece may or may not be a character assassination.

In light of point 2 which scenario is most likely for 3?

[_RockSlider]

If DCP did his job as the Editor of MI, and pulled the article on the advice of the GA, then why is Dehlin upset with DCP? Shouldn't Dehlin's anger be more with whomever wrote the article to begin with?

What is also confusing to me is that Dehlin, himself, claimed that he has not READ the article in question. He has evidence that it was apparently negative. It sounds like whomever the GA was who read the article, told him about it. But he has not even read the article himself.

And, since the article has been clearly pulled, is not being published, and has apprently been read by NO ONE, what, exactly are we talking about here? What am I missing?

I would say that if negative articles are actively being pulled from publication, this is something that should be celebrated. I also don't really see why DCP is being portrayed as the ultimate bad guy here, simply because he is the Editor of MI. If he made the ultimate call to actually pull the article in question, then shouldn't he be celebrated as well?

I actually agree with what Liz has said here. If only Dan would have indicated something to this effect in his only public response to this. His response seemed like a duck and cover to me.