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

[_Kishkumen]

It merely suggests there is hostility within the very atmosphere here. To deny it and employ sophistry in order to jump around the point is not going to work on me.

I have noted a similar hostility on MDDB, the apologetic discussion board, which has traditionally been reined in by banning people on a regular basis and closing threads. If you are trying to suggest that somehow MDB is especially egregious as a discussion board on a topic that invites the expression of a lot of emotion, then you failed.

You are a bonehead if you think I have any interest in defending any slams against anyone that are not merited. In other words the only slams I support are slams against the aggressive accusers and provokers here or anywhere they hide.

If this is your MO, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I see you sniping at people who are critical of apologetics and the LDS Church, but I don't see you ever being critical of apologists. Maybe I missed it. Maybe I forgot it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I just haven't seen it. Therefore, I do not believe you until shown otherwise.

Incidentally, I don't' support Dehlin's slams on others here. Particularly since he took off just afterward and that he offered them in a place that will gain him high praise.

Nice try, slick. John has not ever been a regular participant on this board. He doesn't spend much time here. So, yes, after he said what he had to say he left. Again, nice try for making him out to be the bad guy because of it. Yes, you were pretty underhanded there.

[_Yoda]

Has anyone given thought to the fact that maybe the reason Dan hasn't made any type of statement is because he is not at liberty to do so? It seems to me that this whole incident is based upon conjecture.

Maybe the reason that Dan hasn't responded is based on confidentiality issues involving his job.

[_stemelbow]

I have noted a similar hostility on MDDB, the apologetic discussion board, which has traditionally been reined in by banning people on a regular basis and closing threads. If you are trying to suggest that somehow MDB is especially egregious as a discussion board on a topic that invites the expression of a lot of emotion, then you failed.

If I"m trying to do what? I haven't tried to do anything but be very clear that the hostility here is disconcerting at best. I wish it would stop.

If this is your MO, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I see you sniping at people who are critical of apologetics and the LDS Church, but I don't see you ever being critical of apologists. Maybe I missed it. Maybe I forgot it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I just haven't seen it. Therefore, I do not believe you until shown otherwise.

I have no obligation at all to refute your skepticism of me. I don't care. Take my comments as they are or hide behind your cynicism. Beats the hell out of me what you choose.

Nice try, slick. John has not ever been a regular participant on this board.

Never said he was.

He doesn't spend much time here. So, yes, after he said what he had to say he left. Again, nice try for making him out to be the bad guy because of it. Yes, you were pretty underhanded there.

I took issue that he came here went on the attack on people who don't post here and left without answering any questions by me or Ray or anyone else who questioned him, his motives, and the whole story. That was pretty sorry behavior. I really expected more from him. Throw out some vitriolic comments and run off? Sorry. that's just being a troll--which he accused LDS apologists of being oddly enough.

[_Buffalo]

You love me? I'm touched. Sorry to say, the hate you see in me is really coming from this place. 'Tis sad you are blinded by the trickery. I do wish more for you.

You're letting mopologetics canker your soul. You used to be a nice person. Don't turn into a Wade Englund.

[_stemelbow]

You're letting mopologetics canker your soul. You used to be a nice person. Don't turn into a Wade Englund.

Jeesh, Buffalo, you don't even know Wade Englund. Drop the hostility, my man.

[Guest]

It would have to be one of the Big 15. And I'm sorry, I just can't imagine one of them taking the time to read a 100 page "hit piece" or "critique" of John Delin (someone I didn't know about until just recently) and then calling down to Daniel Peterson and ordering him to not print it for ... what were the reasons now?

If the Big 15 were going to become editors of BYU journals, why wouldn't they have put the kibosh on the Meldrum article too?

Or are you saying they're just getting started, and this is the first time they've exercised their editorial powers?

I'm just saying most of this story stinks in my opinion. No offense intended to John Delin, but I just don't think he's important enough for the Big 15 to care whether or not Peterson (or Smith or whoever) wants to publish a hit piece/critique about him.

I mean, what would it really matter? Are you trying to say that so many people would be offended by a hit piece/critique of Delin that they would stop going to church or paying their tithing or doing their home teaching?

I just don't get it.

The issue with them going after Dehlin is he's a popular public figure. The church wants to minimize bad press in an election year. A hit piece on Dehlin would only make the church look like the bad guys.

[_Buffalo]

Jeesh, Buffalo, you don't even know Wade Englund.

When I first met him, Wade was already a great man. But I was amazed how strongly the Spirit was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as an apologist. I thought that I could instruct him just as well as Peterson. I was wrong. He's more machine now than man. His mind is twisted and evil

[_Equality]

I took issue that he came here went on the attack on people who don't post here and left without answering any questions by me or Ray or anyone else who questioned him, his motives, and the whole story. That was pretty sorry behavior. I really expected more from him. Throw out some vitriolic comments and run off? Sorry. that's just being a troll--which he accused LDS apologists of being oddly enough.

He didn't "attack" anyone. Nor was he "hostile." Nor did he express any "hate" toward anyone. He was here a little while ago browsing. He probably saw how dunderheaded you are and figured, wisely, that there is no point in trying to engage you in rational discourse. He didn't start this thread; he came in to try to give some information about what Scratch said in the original post. None of the people he mentioned in his comments is refused admission to this forum, where they can respond freely. DCP has chosen--for whatever reason--not to clear up the issues, but instead to attack Scratch and Kishkumen on his blog where no one can respond. That's truly cowardly behavior, don't you agree?

[Guest]

-

[_stemelbow]

He didn't "attack" anyone. Nor was he "hostile." Nor did he express any "hate" toward anyone. He was here a little while ago browsing. He probably saw how dunderheaded you are and figured, wisely, that there is no point in trying to engage you in rational discourse. He didn't start this thread; he came in to try to give some information about what Scratch said in the original post. None of the people he mentioned in his comments is refused admission to this forum, where they can respond freely. DCP has chosen--for whatever reason--not to clear up the issues, but instead to attack Scratch and Kishkumen on his blog where no one can respond. That's truly cowardly behavior, don't you agree?

I don't agree, obviously. he clearly attacked people. He ran off. I don't think Daniel's behavior of not posting here is cowardly. I think its probably wise consider how people treat him here.