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

[_Doctor Scratch]

Also, I just want to add that if John Dehlin feels that I have maliciously dragged him into some kind of conflict, hoping to use him as a "pawn," as Liz suggested, then he has my sincerest apologies. I was told by a couple of people that FARMS was planning to attack him in print, and felt that this was news that was worth presenting to the community. Simon Southerton confirmed this in a thread, and the rest is history. I think that, though our approaches are clearly quite different, and that we obviously have different opinions on things, Dehlin and I can probably at least agree that things should be done to prevent people from being hurt by their experiences with the LDS Church. And I just don't think that the Mopologists feel the same way. To cite just one example: can you imagine Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens going on RfM in order to harvest quotes to later use as a means of embarrassing people? Can you imagine either of these guys going off on a k-word-laced rant? There is just a fundamental difference in views and approaches here.

I suppose you could argue that criticizing the Mopologists does nothing to help those who've been wounded, though obviously I disagree with that. I believe that keeping the spotlight tuned on them has revealed a lot more of their flaws. Sure: we could ignore them and hope that they just wither on the vine, but I think that concentrated criticism has arguably helped to hasten their fall from grace. And that is a fundamentally good thing.

Scratch - I think that this is an important story to tell....I just wish that we all knew how to talk about it in a more constructive way. I wasn't going to bring it up publicly out of respect for the parties involved, but once you did so, I felt like I wanted to say what I could about the story to prevent misunderstanding. Not sure how much good came out of it all, but I appreciate what you were trying to do.

Thanks, John--I appreciate your reply. Yeah, the thing is: a lot of people come to me when they want some given story to be told, mainly because they know there is a good likelihood that the Mopologists will read it and will perhaps respond. So when people provide me with "intel," my main inclination is to post it, since that's why these people send me stuff in the first place. But, you're right: it can sometimes be difficult to determine how much to tell, or in what context, etc. Sometimes it's clear to me that some things should be kept under wraps; sometimes it's not. In this case, it was obvious that a lot of people already knew about what had happened (hence why I was told in the first place), and I agree with you that the story deserved/s wider airing. So much of Mormonism--especially Mormon Apologetics--is done under the cover of secrecy, and I don't think that's healthy. And that's my 2 or 3 cents on the matter.

Warm regards to you, in any case.

[_RayAgostini]

So much of Mormonism--especially Mormon Apologetics--is done under the cover of secrecy, and I don't think that's healthy.

Very ironic.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So much of Mormonism--especially Mormon Apologetics--is done under the cover of secrecy, and I don't think that's healthy.

Very ironic.

Lol. Why do you say that, Ray? Is it because I'm also a powerful religious and/or apologetic organization with the power to affect people's memberships and lives in profound ways?

[_harmony]

So much of Mormonism--especially Mormon Apologetics--is done under the cover of secrecy, and I don't think that's healthy.

Very ironic.

Very... and the hidden finances, and the lack of canon for certain revelations, and the hidden 2nd annointing, and the hidden Council of 50 meeting minutes, etc etc etc.

Yeah... secret, hidden and ironic.

[_RayAgostini]

Lol. Why do you say that, Ray? Is it because I'm also a powerful religious and/or apologetic organization with the power to affect people's memberships and lives in profound ways?

It's quite okay for you to throw around these allegations (this is not a statement on whether they're true or not), and sit back and watch the fireworks and criticisms, while John has to deal with it head-on. You didn't to this to "help John", you did this to hurt DCP. That was your sole motive. All you are about is revenge, not taking more constructive approaches as set out in John's Mormon Stories goals. You're not going to accomplish much by fighting fire with fire, and many more people will be hurt in the process. It's not just "the apologists" doing the damage.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lol. Why do you say that, Ray? Is it because I'm also a powerful religious and/or apologetic organization with the power to affect people's memberships and lives in profound ways?

It's quite okay for you to throw around these allegations (this is not a statement on whether they're true or not), and sit back and watch the fireworks and criticisms, while John has to deal with it head-on. You didn't to this to "help John", you did this to hurt DCP. That was your sole motive. All you are about is revenge, not taking more constructive approaches as set out in John's Mormon Stories goals. You're not going to accomplish much by fighting fire with fire, and many more people will be hurt in the process. It's not just "the apologists" doing the damage.

This didn't begin with me. I wasn't the one who orchestrated the "hit piece." I didn't initiate it; I didn't write it; I didn't edit it. You can't cite me as being a force that set this thing in motion--I was really just the messenger (and even that's debatable, given that I was told about this via PM). So shoot me if you want, but I wasn't the person at the source of this conflict.

Maybe that's what you should be asking yourself: What started all this? Why would Greg Smith want to write a "hit piece" in the first place? You say in your post that Dehlin's approach was "more constructive," and yet look where that got him.

ETA: Part of what you're saying is quite reprehensible, Ray, which is that we should shut up and say nothing in the face of abusive groups of people and/or institutions. What you seem to be arguing, in effect here, is that one should never criticize the Mopologists, because it will only anger them and cause them to go out and viciously attack, smear, and tear down other people at an even worse rate, and to an even greater extent. Needless to say, I don't agree that silence in the face of this kind of thing is a good idea.

[_RayAgostini]

ETA: Part of what you're saying is quite reprehensible, Ray, which is that we should shut up and say nothing in the face of abusive groups of people and/or institutions. What you seem to be arguing, in effect here, is that one should never criticize the Mopologists, because it will only anger them and cause them to go out and viciously attack, smear, and tear down other people at an even worse rate, and to an even greater extent. Needless to say, I don't agree that silence in the face of this kind of thing is a good idea.

That's not what I'm arguing, at all. Once again, The Problem with Mormon Apologists and Their Critics.

Unfortunately I'm busy again this morning and won't have time to reply further to the rest until later.

[_Kishkumen]

That's not what I'm arguing, at all. Once again, The Problem with Mormon Apologists and Their Critics.

Unfortunately I'm busy again this morning and won't have time to reply further to the rest until later.

I loved that blog entry the first time I read it. It's a classic, Ray.

So well done.

[_Doctor Scratch]

ETA: Part of what you're saying is quite reprehensible, Ray, which is that we should shut up and say nothing in the face of abusive groups of people and/or institutions. What you seem to be arguing, in effect here, is that one should never criticize the Mopologists, because it will only anger them and cause them to go out and viciously attack, smear, and tear down other people at an even worse rate, and to an even greater extent. Needless to say, I don't agree that silence in the face of this kind of thing is a good idea.

That's not what I'm arguing, at all. Once again, The Problem with Mormon Apologists and Their Critics.

Unfortunately I'm busy again this morning and won't have time to reply further to the rest until later.

That's fine, Ray, but your blog entry is more just about the intransigence of the apologists concerning certain doctrinal or historical points. Well, fine: we can criticize those sorts of things, but to my mind that isn't really what we've been talking about here. Rather, we've been criticizing the Mopologists' tendency to attack--to smear, to write "hit pieces," and so on. Your blog post doesn't really touch upon that at all.

And I've read Hoffer's book--it's excellent. I guess the problem is that I don't really subscribe either to the critic's position (or, at least, the critics' position as you describe it in the entry) nor the Mopologists' side as being "dogmatically correct." Whether or not "the Church is true" is something that I tend not to discuss... You know what I mean? And argumentum ad hominem is hardly a religion or a dogma.... Except maybe at the Maxwell Institute.

The bottom line is that I think you are writing about something else in your blog entry.

[_static]

Where's the evidence for a "hit piece?"

mormonstories himself said it was a

multi-paged critique

that he hasn't seen.

Are critiques supposed to never exceed one page? Are critiques not to be written at all? What is the problem with a multi-paged critique?