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

[_Buffalo]

The Lord's apostle was disturbed enough to cut it off before it could be published. It's nice to know that your loyalties lie not with the oracles of the Lord, but with Dr. Peterson. Are you going to officially transfer your membership to the Church of FAIR?

Adorable Buffalo. DCP's loyalties lie with the oracles of the Lord. Nice attempt at creating divisiveness.

Obviously not. A loyal follower would have admitted frankly his error as pointed out by the apostle and asked John D's forgiveness.

[_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.

There you go libeling Dehlin again. Just because you repeat something 100 times does not make it so, despite what the Mormon church teaches you in F&T meeting. John said nothing remotely "vitriolic." Or hostile. Or hateful. He merely defended himself against a hit piece written by Mormon apologists. For future reference, stem, critical thinking is not synonymous with "hostility." Being disappointed in someone, sad for them, finding their actions pathetic, does not equate with hate, hostility, or vitriol.

[_Buffalo]

Let's just call it what it is rather than continuing the hostilities. We disagree. We plainly disagree. My thoughts are that he acted the part of a troll in what he did here. Your thoughts are that his behavior did not merit such. That does not make either of us dishonest, nor does it make either of us idiots. Maybe both are a little biased, to say the least.

Your hatred for John Dehlin and all of us here at MD has twisted your reasoning. Why all the hate?

[_stemelbow]

There you go libeling Dehlin again. Just because you repeat something 100 times does not make it so, despite what the Mormon church teaches you in F&T meeting. John said nothing remotely "vitriolic." Or hostile. Or hateful. He merely defended himself against a hit piece written by Mormon apologists. For future reference, stem, critical thinking is not synonymous with "hostility." Being disappointed in someone, sad for them, finding their actions pathetic, does not equate with hate, hostility, or vitriol.

I don't think I can help the blind eye you have turned. Surely his comments were hostile. he threw out some hostile comments and ran off. That's not libel. That's calling it as I see it.

[_stemelbow]

Obviously not. A loyal follower would have admitted frankly his error as pointed out by the apostle and asked John D's forgiveness.

The piece was not DCP's creation, Buffalo. At least that's been the claim. Now you are again falsely accusing an LDS of error. And last week you complained some other LDS person was too judgmental for your respect. Oh boy.

[_Kishkumen]

Let's just call it what it is rather than continuing the hostilities. We disagree. We plainly disagree. My thoughts are that he acted the part of a troll in what he did here. Your thoughts are that his behavior did not merit such. That does not make either of us dishonest, nor does it make either of us idiots. Maybe both are a little biased, to say the least.

I will call it how it is:

You either do not know the accepted definition of trolling:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."

Or you are deliberately misusing the term in order to attack John Dehlin.

Those are the options. I don't see how anyone who knows what trolling actually is could call what John did "trolling" so simple disagreement over two equally valid definitions of the term trolling is not what this is about.

[_stemelbow]

Your hatred for John Dehlin and all of us here at MD has twisted your reasoning. Why all the hate?

I don't' know the guy. I"ve watched some of the interviews he's done and read the few posts he's offered here. I don't hate the guy further than I can throw his 6 foot 5 frame (see I watched one of the podcasts in which he tells us how tall he is).

[_lostindc]

So is anyone from MI going to address the claims of a hit piece? I get rather tired of reading stemelbow. If you eliminate her posts then this thread is only 6 pages. Apparently, stemelbow is the only one wanting to address the issue. DCP continues to hide and if Liz's suggestion is correct, that DCP cannot talk about the hit piece, then DCP should state he cannot talk about the hit piece for whatever reason.

[_Buffalo]

Obviously not. A loyal follower would have admitted frankly his error as pointed out by the apostle and asked John D's forgiveness.

The piece was not DCP's creation, Buffalo. At least that's been the claim. Now you are again falsely accusing an LDS of error. And last week you complained some other LDS person was too judgmental for your respect. Oh boy.

DCP would have run it if not for the intervention of the apostle. Personal responsibility, Stem. It's time for you and your boss to take some.

[_Kishkumen]

Being disappointed in someone, sad for them, finding their actions pathetic, does not equate with hate, hostility, or vitriol.

Pleading with apologists to stop can only be based on hatred of them personally, in stem's view. Which is why we don't think much of stem's view on this.